Appeal No. 2005-0381 Page 11
Application No. 09/841,380
producing the required line of charged droplets, claim 38 is anticipated by Hess. Again, lack of
novelty is the ultimate or epitome of obviousness. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d at 794, 215 USPQ
at 571.
We conclude that the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard
to the subject matter of claim 38 which has not bee sufficiently rebutted by Appellants and, that,
moreover, there is anticipation.
Group V, Claim 43
Claim 43 further limits the apparatus of claim 33 to one further comprising one or more
nip rolls that force the substrate against the conductive transfer surface. Appellants argue that
there is no disclosure in Nakajima of nip rolls that the force the substrate against the transfer roll.
According to Appellants, the pressure referred to by Nakajima in column 11, lines 29-32 is a
reference to outwardly directed air pressure that pushes the image forming elements 1 away form
the cylinder 20. Appellants point to column 11, lines 17-19 as supporting their interpretation of
the reference. But column 11, lines 17-19 describe the pushing of the elements 1 out from the
gun 21 onto the transfer roll 21, not the use of air pressure to push elements away from the
cylinder. Note the use of the word “toward” in the discussion. The description of pressure is
made in the context of applying pressure to the elements 1 by the transfer cylinder to move the
elements 1 onto the adhesive 3. We determine that Nakajima describes applying pressure
between transfer cylinder 20 and drum 24 and, therefore, there are nip rolls that force the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007