Appeal No. 2003-0667 Page 7
Application No. 09/514,699
Appellants also argue that the Examiner has not provided any reason or suggestion for the
combination of the process of Wellings with the surfactant-containing liquid developer
concentrate of Lane (Amended Brief at p. 10). This argument is not persuasive because the
Examiner has specifically pointed out that Lane expressly teaches advantages for including the
surfactant in liquid developer concentrate: namely, to permit easy redispersion and elimination of
frequent liquid disposal (Answer at p. 9; citing Lane at col. 3, ll. 3-15). The motivation for the
combination is readily apparent from Lane itself.
The Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter of claim 1 as evidenced by the combination of Wellings and Lane. The Exxon
Bulletins are cumulative with regard to claim 1 and, thus, we need not discuss them here.
Appellants’ arguments fail to pinpoint any reversible error on the part of the Examiner or
otherwise sufficiently rebut the prima facie case of obviousness.
Liu in combination with Wellings and Lane as evidenced by the Exxon Bulletins
The Examiner has also rejected claim 1 over Liu in combination with Wellings and Lane
as evidenced by the Exxon Bulletins.
The Examiner has established that Liu describes a process including steps of depositing,
developing, and reclaiming substantially as claimed (Answer at pp. 11-12). Specifically, Liu
describes depositing a liquid developer onto a liquid receiver member (imaging member 10) to
form a developer cake (Liu at col. 8, ll. 20-26), developing an image with the developer cake (Liu
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007