Appeal No. 1996-3709
Application 07/980,221
Tsukakoshi, the developing device 22 does not need to be
detached from the lower body to remove a paper jam and the
photosensitive drum 4 similarly is not contemplated to be
detachable from the upper body as claimed in claim 22, see
lines 6 to 10 of claim 22. We are not persuaded by the
Examiner’s assertions to the contrary. Thus, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 22 and, hence, of
dependent claims 23 and 26 over Tsukakoshi.
Claims 24, 25, 27 and 28
These claims are rejected as being obvious over
Tsukakoshi in view of Tabuchi and Kando. Each of these claims
depends on independent claim 22 discussed above and contains
at least the same limitations. Neither Tabuchi nor Kando,
singly or in
combination, cures the deficiency of Tsukakoshi. Therefore,
we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of these claims
over Tsukakoshi in view of Tabuchi and Kando.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007