Appeal No. 2006-3218
Application No. 10/233,845
Additionally, we note that the language of independent claim 16 does not
specifically recite the location of the electrode on the outside of the toner cartridge or that
the electrode is separate from the toner cartridge or that it is affixed to the housing of the
reprographic device rather than to the cartridge.
Since we find that the combination of the AAPA and Miyashiro teaches all of the
limitations as recited in independent claim 16 and that it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the teachings in light of
the suggestion in Miyashiro, and we do not find that Appellants have presented a
persuasive argument that the combination is in error, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 16.
With respect to independent claim 21, Appellants reiterate the same arguments
with respect to the combination of the AAPA and Miyashiro and that Saito does not
remedy the shortcomings of the combination. We did not find a deficiency in the base
combination, therefore, this argument is not persuasive. We found that Miyashiro taught
the placement of one electrode positioned outside the toner cartridge and when the toner
cartridge is mounted in the reprographic device, the electrode on the exterior of the
cartridge is positioned within the device. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 21 and dependent
claims 22-26 grouped therewith.
With respect to independent claim 27, Appellants argue that the combination of
Saito, AAPA and Miyashiro, does not show or suggest a second electrode formed outside
the toner cartridge and fixedly mounted to the reprographic device (Br. 8). We find that
the combination teaches the second electrode formed outside the toner cartridge and
fixedly mounted to the reprographic device as discussed with respect to independent
claims 16 and 21. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain
the rejection of independent claim 27 and dependent claims 28-35 grouped therewith.
With respect to independent claims 16, 21, and 27 as rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over the combination of AAPA and Yasumasa, we agree with the Examiner that
Yasumasa similarly teaches the use of one electrode inside the toner cartridge and at least
one electrode on the outside of the toner cartridge. Appellants again argue that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007