Appeal No. 1996-3709
Application 07/980,221
the claim.
We are convinced by Appellant’s argument. For example,
the steps of “forming an ... image on said photosensitive
drum, said ... image being produced by ... photosensitive drum
... and an electrifying device ... said electrifying device
installed to be detached with said photosensitive drum when
said photosensitive drum is detached from said upper body”
(claim 29, lines 9 to 14) and “forming said image by
supplying toner to said photosensitive drum from a developing
device detachably installed in said lower body” (claim 29,
lines 14 to 15) dictate the recited position of the recited
apparatus components. Without such positioning of the
components, the claimed steps cannot be held to be obvious.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 29 over
Tsukakoshi in view of Kando.
Claim 22, 23 and 26
These claims are rejected as being obvious over
Tsukakoshi alone. Taking independent claim 22, we evaluate
the positions of the Examiner [answer, page 20] and Appellant
[brief, pages 35 to 37]. We are of the view that, in
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007