Appeal No. 2003-0667 Page 8
Application No. 09/514,699
at col. 12, ll. 15-20), and reclaiming undeveloped developer cake from the receiver member
(imaging member 10) such as by a blade cleaning apparatus 90 (Liu at col. 13, ll. 3-5).
The Examiner has acknowledged that Liu does not specifically disclose the claimed steps
of dispersing and redispersing (Answer at p. 12). Those steps, however, are associated with
recycling the developer, something Liu does suggest (Liu at col. 13, ll. 7-11). While Liu does not
provide the details of the recycling operation, Liu suggests the use of recycling processes
disclosed in the relevant patent literature (Liu at col. 13, ll. 11-14). Wellings discloses a relevant
recycling process with steps of dispersing and redispersing as claimed. On this basis, the
Examiner has concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have performed the dispersing and redispersing steps of Wellings to reclaim and recycle the
liquid developer of Liu to facilitate recycling as suggested by Liu (Answer at pp. 12-13).
Appellants argue that Liu does not teach the use of a second liquid developer or
redispersing of the reclaimed undeveloped developer cake in a second liquid developer
(Amended Brief at p. 9). The “second liquid developer” of the claim is simply the working
liquid developer used to develop the image. The Examiner does not rely upon Liu to teach the
redispersing step; that step is taught by Wellings.
Appellants also argue that Liu does not teach or suggest the use of a second liquid
developer that is dielectric (Amended Brief at p. 9). This issue is irrelevant with respect to the
process of claim 1. Claim 1 does not limit the developer to one that is dielectric.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007