Ex parte SASS et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 1998

08088146 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 9, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DOUGLAS W. SASS,
STEPHEN T. DUNN and RONALD E. GODLOVE

_____________
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,1461
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
2
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner's rejection of claims 1-11, 14 and 15. Claims
12 and 13 have been allowed by the examiner.
The invention pertains to an apparatus for cleaning
debris from a movable photoreceptor belt of an electronic
reprographic image forming apparatus. More particularly, a
cleaning roller and a pressure roller are placed to define a nip
through which the photoreceptor belt moves. A means is provided
to maintain a substantially uniformly distributed contact
pressure between the cleaning roller and the photoreceptor belt.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. An apparatus for cleaning debris from a movable
photoreceptor belt having an outer surface and an inner surface,
comprising:
a rotatably mounted cleaning roller adapted to remove
debris adhering to the outer surface of the photoreceptor belt;
a rotatably mounted pressure roller mounted adjacent to
the inner surface of the photoreceptor belt, said cleaning roller
and said pressure roller defining a nip through which the
photoreceptor belt moves; and
means for continuously maintaining a substantially
uniformly distributed contact pressure between said cleaning
roller and the outer surface of the photoreceptor belt.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Takizawa et al. (Takizawa) 4,253,761 Mar. 03, 1981
Tomita et al. (Tomita) 4,499,849 Feb. 19, 1985
Usui et al. (Usui) 5,083,169 Jan. 21, 1992
Uno et al. (Uno) 5,111,251 May 05, 1992
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
3
Nishise et al. (Nishise) 5,196,893 Mar. 23, 1993
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Usui. Claims
3-8, 10, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Usui in view of
Nishise with respect to claims 3 and 4, Usui in view of Uno with
respect to claims 5, 8 and 10, Usui in view of Tomita with
respect to claims 6 and 10, Usui in view of Uno and Tomita with
respect to claim 7, and Usui in view of Takizawa with respect to
claims 14 and 15.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants' arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
4
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Usui fully meets the invention as
recited in claims 1, 2, 9 and 11. We are also of the view that
the collective evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims
3-8, 10, 14 and 15. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 9 and 11
as being anticipated by the disclosure of Usui. These claims
stand or fall together [brief, page 3], and we will consider
claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has indicated how she has read claim 1 on
the Usui disclosure [answer, page 4]. Appellants do not question
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
5
that Usui discloses the claimed cleaning roller and pressure
roller defining a nip therebetween through which the
photoreceptor belt moves. Rather, appellants focus their
arguments on the failure of Usui to meet the recitation of the
“means for continuously maintaining” as recited in claim 1.
Specifically, appellants argue that the cleaning brush of Usui is
simply moved between a cleaning and a non-cleaning position, and
that such movement does not satisfy the “means for continuously
maintaining” element of claim 1.
Appellants interpret the final element of claim 1 as
requiring some kind of sensing or control feature [brief, page
4]. They argue that since Usui does not sense the amount of
pressure across the cleaning nip, then the Usui actuator does not
“continuously and uniformly adjust contact nip pressure on the
photoreceptor belt” [Id.]. We note that claim 1 does not recite
that the means must be able to “adjust” the pressure, but only
that the means be able to “maintain” a pressure. It is the
position of the examiner and we agree that the cleaning position
of the Usui device forces the cleaning roller and pressure roller
together so as to maintain a continuous and uniform pressure
across the cleaning nip. An uncontrollable pressure applying
means such as a mechanical clamp can maintain a continuous and
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
6
uniform pressure where it is applied without any additional
sensing or control means. We are of the view that the mechanical
force applied by lever 42 on the arm 38 in Usui is sufficient to
overcome any opposite forces so that the cleaning roller is
maintained against the pressure roller with a continuous and
uniform distribution of the pressure.
Claim 1 does not recite that the pressure is maintained
“resiliently” so that arguments to that effect are not
persuasive. Finally, appellants’ arguments regarding the
inability of the Usui device to move in a side to side or other
self-adjusting manner are not commensurate in scope with the
invention as recited in claim 1. Claim 1 does not require that
such movements be possible in order to maintain a continuous and
uniform distribution of pressure. The rollers 34 and 36 in Usui
are cylindrical in shape and extend along the full width of the
photoreceptor belt. Therefore, like the clamp noted above, the
cleaning roller is forced against the pressure roller to maintain
a continuous and uniform pressure across the entire width of the
cleaning nip.
For the reasons just discussed, we are of the view that
the invention as broadly recited in claim 1 is fully met by the
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
7
disclosure of Usui. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We now consider the rejection of claims 3 and 4 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Usui and Nishise. Claims 3
and 4 stand or fall together [brief, page 3]. The examiner has
explained why it would have been obvious to the artisan to move
either one of the cleaning roller or the pressure roller so as to
maintain the pressure at the cleaning nip [answer, pages 5-6].
Appellants’ initial argument with respect to this
rejection is that “Nishise does not adjust or compensate so as to
continuously uniformly distribute contact pressure at the
blade/belt nip” so that it suffers the same deficiency as Usui
[brief, page 6]. As we noted above, however, this limitation
incorporated from claim 1 is fully met by the disclosure of Usui
so this argument is without merit.
Appellants’ next argument with respect to this rejection
is that the teachings of Usui and Nishise would not be combined
by the artisan because they are designed for inconsistent
purposes [brief, page 8]. The propriety of combining two prior
art teachings must be considered in the context of the scope of
the invention and the teachings to be combined. The examiner has
combined the teachings of Usui and Nishise for the sole purpose
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
8
of showing that it was known to move either the cleaning roller
or the pressure roller in a photoreceptor belt cleaning system.
Thus, Nishise is cited for the sole purpose of demonstrating that
the artisan would have found it obvious within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103 to move the pressure roller in Usui rather than the
cleaning roller. This is the scope of the invention as recited
in claims 3 and 4, and the teachings of this scope are properly
combinable from Usui and Nishise. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We now consider the rejection of claims 5, 8 and 10 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Usui and Uno. These
claims stand or fall together [brief, page 3]. The examiner has
explained why it would have been obvious to the artisan to use a
resilient means to urge the cleaning roller towards the belt so
as to maintain the pressure at the cleaning nip [answer, page 6].
Appellants’ initial argument with respect to this
rejection, as with the previous rejection, is that the secondary
reference (Uno) does not suggest the maintaining means of claim
1. As we noted above, since Usui is considerd to meet this
limitation of claim 1, this particular argument is without merit.
Appellants also point out individual differences between
each of the applied references and the claimed invention. This
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
9
individual consideration of the prior art references is improper.
With respect to the invention as broadly recited in claim 5, the
only question is whether it would have been obvious to the
artisan to use a resilient means such as a spring in Usui for
maintaining the cleaning roller against the pressure roller. Uno
teaches the broad concept of using a spring to bias movement in a
photoreceptor belt cleaner, and we agree with the examiner that
the broad recitation of such a means would have been obvious to
the artisan in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 5, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We now consider the rejection of claims 6 and 10 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Usui and Tomita. These claims
stand or fall together [brief, page 3]. The examiner has
explained why it would have been obvious to the artisan to use a
resilient means to urge the pressure roller towards the belt so
as to maintain the pressure at the cleaning nip [answer, page 7].
Appellants argue that Tomita does not teach use of a
pressure roller, but rather, a bar-like counter member [brief,
page 12]. We are not persuaded by this argument because Usui is
relied on to teach a cleaning roller and a pressure roller having
a cleaning nip therebetween. Tomita is cited for the sole
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
10
purpose of teaching that it was known to the artisan that either
the pressure roller or the cleaning roller could be moved in
order to maintain the pressure therebetween. For purposes of
this broad teaching, Tomita is properly cited by the examiner.
Appellants also make the same arguments we have
considered above with respect to the last element of claim 1. As
noted above, we agree with the examiner that the device of Usui
fully meets the maintaining means as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
We now consider the rejection of claim 7 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Usui, Uno and Tomita. The
examiner has explained why it would have been obvious to the
artisan to use a resilient means to urge both the pressure roller
towards the belt and the cleaning roller towards the belt so as
to maintain the pressure at the cleaning nip [answer, pages 7-8].
Claim 7 basically recites the features separately recited
in claims 5 and 6. We have previously determined that Uno
suggests the feature recited in claim 5 and Tomita suggests the
feature recited in claim 6. Therefore, the combination of prior
art references suggests the invention of claim 7 for the reasons
discussed above.
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
11
Finally, we consider the rejection of claims 14 and 15 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Usui and Takizawa.
These claims stand or fall together [brief, page 3]. The
examiner has explained why it would have been obvious to the
artisan to include a cleaning bar and a means for deflecting the
cleaning bar towards the cleaning roller [answer, pages 8-9].
Appellants argue that the Takizawa device cleans a drum
rather than a belt [brief, page 15]. We are not persuaded by
this distinction. Usui teaches a cleaning roller for cleaning a
photoreceptor belt as discussed above. Usui also teaches the use
of a flicker bar (or cleaner bar) 46 for dislodging waste matter
adhering to the cleaning roller. With respect to the invention
having the scope of claim 14, the only question is whether the
teachings of Takizawa would have suggested to the artisan the
broad idea of deflecting the Usui cleaning bar towards the
cleaning roller. For reasons indicated by the examiner, we agree
that the collective teachings of Usui and Takizawa would have
suggested the invention of claim 14. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims. Therefore, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1-11, 14 and 15 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
13
Ronald Zibelli
Xerox Corporation
Xerox Square 20A
Rochester, NY 14644