The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte RONALD S. STEELMAN,
ERIC J. HANSON and JENNIFER JEANNETTE
______________
Appeal No. 1997-3887
Application 08/449,204
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, WALTZ and JEFFREY T. SMITH Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including the
opposing view of the examiner, in the answer, and appellants, in the brief, and based on our review, find
that we cannot sustain any of the five grounds of rejection of appealed claims 6 through 111 advanced
by the examiner on appeal.
We find that the plain language of appealed claim 6, the sole independent claim, clearly specifies
that the electrostatic toner receptor layer comprises at least a blend of an acrylic resin, a vinyl resin, a
1 These are all of the claims in the application. See the specification, pages 12-13, and the amendment
of August 19, 1996 (Paper No. 4).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007