Ex parte ITO - Page 3

          Appeal No. 2000-1347                                                        
          Application No. 08/740,283                                                  

               neighboring to said corresponding current receiver                     
          member, wherein                                                             
               a distance L3 from the inner end of said carrier to                    
          the       outer end of said current receiver member                         
          neighboring to      said carrier is 1 mm or more, a sum (L1+L2)             
          of a width L1 of    said insulating member and a height L2 of               
          said insulating     member from the outer surface of said core              
          roller is 2.5 mm    or more, and said distance L3 and said                  
          width L1 satisfy a       relationship of L3>L1.                             
                                  THE PRIOR ART                                       
               The references relied upon by the examiner to reject the               
          appealed claims are:                                                        
          Kogure et al. (Kogure)       4,813,372             Mar. 21,                 
          Watanabe                     5,575,942             Nov. 19,                 
                             THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL                                 
               Claims 1 through 7 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.              
           102(b) as being anticipated by Kogure.                                    
               Claims 9 through 16 stand finally rejected under 35                    
          U.S.C.   103(a) as being unpatentable over Kogure in view of               
               Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply                
          briefs (Paper Nos. 18 and 20) and to the examiner’s answer                  
          (Paper No. 19) for the respective positions of the appellant                
          and the examiner with regard to the merits of these                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007