Appeal No. 1999-0578
Application 08/217,641
Takimoto 2 with Fukushima is improper because Takimoto 2 is
concerned with avoiding intermediate states [brief, page 10].
The examiner responds that the rectification function of
Takimoto 2 is only being used to improve the response time and
light sensitivity in the photoconductive layer of Fukushima
[answer, page 9]. Appellants respond that combining Takimoto
2 with Fukushima would introduce all the polarity problems
that Fukushima is trying to avoid [reply brief, pages 3-4].
We agree with appellants for the reasons discussed in
the appeal briefs. It is improper for the examiner to select
only the rectification function of Takimoto 2 when the rest of
the reference indicates it would be unsuitable for use with
Fukushima. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 2 and 3. Since claim 4 depends from claim 3, and since
the additional citation of Hanyu does not overcome the
deficiencies in the combination of Fukushima and Takimoto 2,
we also do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
We now consider the rejection of claims 8 and 29 based
on the teachings of Takimoto 1, Li and Harwood. The examiner
has indicated how he finds obviousness [answer, pages 6-7].
Appellants argue that Takimoto 1 teaches away from a spatially
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007