Appeal No. 1996-1864
Application No. 08/330,349
examiner recognizes that Anderson does not describe or suggest
including a “sulfopolyester compound and [sic, an] adhesion-
promoting amount of an epoxy-silane compound in the anti-
static layer comprising the colloidal vanadium oxide.” See
Answer, page 3.
To remedy these deficiencies of Anderson, the examiner
initially relies on Chang and Buchanan to show that it would
have been “prima facie obvious to incorporate a sulfonated
polyester in the anti-static layer of Anderson.....” See
Answer, page 4. Both Anderson and Chang are said to use the
same vanadium source taught in Guestaux in their anti-static
layers. Id. The examiner then relies on Valsecchi to show
that it would have been prima facie obvious to add an
adhesive-promoting amount of an epoxy compound in the anti-
static layer that utilizes a sulfonated polymer. See Answer,
page 5.
We determine that the examiner’s reasoning is flawed. As
found by the examiner, Chang, Buchanan and Guestaux may
suggest incorporating a sulfopolyester to the anti-static
layer of Anderson (an anti-static layer containing vanadium
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007