Appeal No. 1996-3709
Application 07/980,221
device” (claim 5, lines 9 to 12), and “said developing device
being detachably installed in said lower body for complete
removal from said lower body for accessing said paper path in
said ... device” (claim 5, lines 15 to 17). Therefore, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 5 over Tabuchi
in view of Ohsawa, Tsukakoshi and Kando.
With respect to independent claim 17, we again find that
the combination does not show the limitation discussed above,
namely, “said photosensitive drum being detachably housed in
said upper body for complete removal from said upper body for
accessing a paper path in ... said device” (claim 17, lines 10
to 11). Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 17 over Tabuchi in view of Ohsawa,
Tsukakoshi and Kando.
With respect to independent claim 18, we note the same
limitations as discussed above, i.e., “said photosensitive
drum detachably housed ... for complete removal ... for
accessing a paper path in ... device” (claim 18, lines 10 to
11) and “said developing device detachably housed ... for
complete removal ... for accessing said paper path in ...
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007