Appeal No. 2004-0406
Application No. 10/050,173 Page 4
principles of inherency, every limitation of the claim. See In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants do not argue against the examiner’s determination
establishing that Takeda discloses structure including a
developer carrying member (sleeve 22), photosensitive member
(drum 3) and cover (container 36) for sealing a developer that
corresponds to the structure of like items as recited in
representative claim 6. However, appellants do dispute the
examiner’s determination that the structural member located above
the developer carrying member or developing sleeve (22, fig. 6)
of Takeda (see item labeled x by appellants in a copy of Takeda’s
drawing figure 6 that accompanies the brief) represents structure
that identically corresponds to the claimed clearance regulating
member insofar as the relative location of that structure to the
developer carrying member.
We are not persuaded by the arguments advanced by appellants
in the brief before us. We note that the examiner (answer, page
5) has reasonably determined (answer, page 5) that:
by looking at figure 6 of Takeda et al.(...339), the
clearance, distance, between the developing sleeve (22) and
clearance regulating member is smaller than a maximum height at
which the developer, shown as circles and dots in figure 6, is
projected from the surface of the developer carrying member (22).
Thus, Takeda et al.(...339), discloses that the clearance between
the surface of the developer carrying member and the clearance
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007