Appeal No. 1998-0847
Application No. 08/483,762
Accordingly, the examiner applies Borsenberger for the
disclosure of xerographic processes where the photoreceptor is
in the form of a drum and cleaned by blades (id.).3
For the Group I claims, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to use the imaging member of Pai in
the system
disclosed by Borsenberger because it is a known and
commercially used construction (id.). For the Group II
claims, the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to optimize the
amount of diamine and methane compounds needed in order to
achieve the results desired by Pai, noting that there is only
a slight variation between the preferred upper limit of Pai
(0.1:1) and the lower limit of claim 13 on appeal (at least
0.12:1)(see the Answer, page 6). We agree.
Appellants argue that Pai does not teach the imaging
The examiner applies Oki and Frankel for evidence that polyurethane3
blades were well known in the art (Answer, page 5). Since this limitation
does not appear in the claims under consideration, we need not discuss Oki and
Frankel (see claim 4 on appeal). Furthermore, appellants disclose that
“typical” cleaning blade materials include polyurethane (specification, page
10, ll. 18-21).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007