Appeal No. 1996-3709
Application 07/980,221
§ 103 as we noted above in our discussion of the case law.
Even if we assume that these references were properly
combinable, the resulting combination does not meet the
limitation of claim 1. For example, the combination does not
satisfy the limitation of “a developing device detachably
installed in said lower body such that said developing device
may be completely removed from said lower body for accessing
said paper path” (claim 1, lines 10 to 11) or the limitation
of “lower roller means ... and said second paper convey roller
for receiving said individual sheet and conveying said
individual sheet to said photosensitive drum” (claim 1, lines
13 to 21).
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 over Tabuchi in view of Ohsawa, Tsukakoshi and Kando.
Regarding independent claim 5, we find that the
combination does not show, for example, the limitations of “a
photosensitive drum ... , said photosensitive drum being
detachably combined with said upper body for complete removal
from said upper body for accessing a paper path in said ...
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007