Appeal No. 2004-0406
Application No. 10/050,173 Page 5
regulating member is of a size no greater than a maximum height
of the developer projected from the surface of the developer
carrying member....
Appellants’ generalized statement in opposition (sentence
bridging pages 6 and 7 of the brief) does not specifically
address, much less convincingly refute, that determination of the
examiner. More particularly, appellants (brief, page 7) also
urge that:
It must be noted, however, that the clearance
regulating member has a central portion which is in contact
with the developer. Accordingly, it is clear from Figure 6
of the reference that there is no clearance with the
developer at the central portion of the clearance regulating
member identified as X in the attached drawing figure. The
present invention, contrariwise, aims at regulating the
clearance by the clearance regulating member, not the
leading edge thereof.
We do not find that last noted argument persuasive for
reasons stated by the examiner. In particular, the examiner
(answer, pages 5 and 6) remarks:
this argument is considered to be irrelevant to the claimed
invention since there is no language in any of the claims
prohibiting such a contact. The claims recite that the leading
edge of the clearance regulating member, not the central portion,
is free of contact with the developer. Further, the claims recite
that the clearance regulating member is free from contact with a
surface of the developer carrying member, not developer. As
previously explained, in figure 6 of Takeda et al. (...339) the
clearance regulating member, labeled by Appellant as X, does not
contact the surface of the developer carrying member (22)....
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007