Appeal No. 1996-3709
Application 07/980,221
device” (claim 18, lines 16 to 18). We do not find the
suggested combination to teach these limitations. Therefore,
we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 18 over
Tabuchi in view of Ohsawa, Tsukakoshi and Kando.
Regarding independent claim 20, we again find some of the
same limitations as discussed above, namely, the limitations
of “a photosensitive drum detachably mounted ... for complete
removal ... for accessing a paper path in ... apparatus”
(claim 20, lines 3 to 4) and “a developing device detachably
installed ... for complete removal ... for accessing said
paper path in ... apparatus” (claim 20, lines 7 to 8). Thus,
we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 20 over
Tabuchi in view of Ohsawa, Tsukakoshi and Kando.
With respect to dependent claims 2 to 4, 6 to 10, 12 to
16 and 19, since each contains at least the same limitations
as the respective independent claims discussed above, the
obviousness rejection of these claims over Tabuchi in view of
Ohsawa, Tsukakoshi and Kando is also not sustained.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007