Appeal No. 2003-0667 Page 9
Application No. 09/514,699
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided any reason or suggestion for the
combination of Liu, Wellings and Lane (Amended Brief at p. 10). But the Examiner specifically
identified reasons for the combination (Answer at pp. 14-15). Lane expressly discloses the
advantages of using the reconstitution compound (surfactant) in liquid developer: better
redispersion and elimination of frequent liquid disposal (Lane at col. 3, ll. 3-15).
We conclude that the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness over Liu,
Wellings, and Lane with respect to the subject matter of claim 1. The Exxon Bulletins are
cumulative with respect to claim 1. Appellants have not persuaded us of any reversible error by
the Examiner nor have Appellants sufficiently rebutted the prima face case of obviousness.
Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected as obvious over Liu in combination with Wellings and Lane as
evidenced by the Exxon Bulletins. Appellants argue that the Examiner has not pointed to any
teachings in the references wherein it is shown that developer cake on a liquid receiver member
is charged by a corona charger prior to developing the image in combination with the process of
claim 1 (Amended Brief at p. 12). But the Examiner specifically made such a finding (Answer at
p. 11). Liu specifically describes corona charging as claimed (Liu at col. 9, ll. 28-64).
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected over both grounds of rejection: 1) Wellings in combination with Lane
as evidenced by the Exxon Bulletins and 2) Liu in combination with Wellings and Lane as
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007