Appeal No. 1996-3506
Application 08/178,439
For the above reasons, we will sustain the rejection
of claim 11 and therefore the rejection of claims 12, 13 and
14 which stand or fall therewith.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 15 through 17 (group II), Appellants state “Claims 15-
17 are allowable over the prior art of record for the same
reasons as discussed above under I [group I].” (brief-page 9.)
Thus, for the same reasons as discussed with regard to claim
11, supra, we will sustain the rejection of claims 15 through
17. We note however, claim 15 recites that the conductive
contacting charger (Appellants’ element 12) is a conductive
rotary brush. Hosoya teaches the use of a conductive
contacting roller charger in Figure 13 as element 73. We
agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to have used a conductive rotary
brush in place thereof as taught by Kohyama as element 2 in
Figure 1.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 11 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007