Appeal No. 1998-1231 Page 5
Application No. 08/729,835
The examiner asserts (answer, page 4) that “[t]he
limitations ‘within a single direction’ and ‘predetermined
optimum velocity’ cannot be found within the original
specification nor is it seen how the device would be limited
to operation only in a single direction.” Appellants’
position (brief, page 5) is that with respect to the
limitation, “within a single direction,” belt 10 is defined
in the specification as traveling in the direction indicated
by arrow 12, and in the art, photoreceptive members generally
travel in only one direction. With respect to the limitation
“predetermined optimum velocity,” appellants assert that the
language has previously been deleted from the claims. From
our review of the originally filed specification, we find
basis for the claim language “within a single direction.” The
specification states (page 5) that the belt 10 rotates in the
direction of the arrow 12 (Figure 5). We find nothing in the
specification to indicate or suggest that the belt can operate
in any direction other than the direction indicated by arrow
12. From the disclosed operation of the system and the
location of the paper feed downstream from the reproducing
stations, and upstream from the corona generating units 52 and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007