Appeal No. 1997-1592
Application No. 08/325,566
In the event of further prosecution, the examiner should consider the structural limitations
introduced by appellant’s “an electrophotographic charging member” preamble. For example, our
review of the specification indicates that an electrically conductive member to be incorporated in a
charging member for charging an electrophotographic photoreceptor is required to exhibit electrical
conductivity of 10 to 10 ohms as calculated in terms of resistivity. (Appellant’s specification, p. 1).3 9
While such a limitation appears to be met by Aizawa’s exemplified sleeves 2, 3 and 4, the examiner and
appellant should clarify for the record what, if any, additional structural differences are required by the
preamble terminology “an electrophotographic charging member.” Further, the examiner should make
appropriate findings as to the anodized aluminum sleeves of Aizawa. If no structural differences are
found between Aizawa’s sleeves and the claimed “electrophotographic charging members” and it is
determined that Aizawa’s sleeves are capable of performing as “electrophotographic charging
members,” the examiner should consider making a new ground of rejection over Aizawa citing the
Special Black #4 description contained in the Pengilly ‘004, ‘272 and ‘118 patents.
Conclusion
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 5, 6 and 8-13 stand under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Aizawa is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007