Appeal No. 2004-0375
Application 09/841,926
The appellants argue that Takagi does not indicate when an
electronically conductive material such as carbon black would be
needed (brief, page 5). Determining the amount of carbon black
would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art through no more than routine experimentation to achieve
the desired effect of adjusting, to the appropriate level, the
resistivity of the elastic layer (col. 5, lines 42-56). See In
re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In
re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
The appellants argue that Takagi’s comparative example 3,
wherein carbon black is included in the elastic layer, shows
significantly poor repeatability of gradient, crushed
photographic image, and poor half-tone repeatability and,
therefore, teaches away from using carbon black (brief, pages 5-
6; reply brief, page 5). This argument is not persuasive because
in that comparative example there is no high resistivity surface
layer on the elastic layer. Moreover, Takagi does not disclose
that the roller in that comparative example is useless as a
semiconductive roller. Instead, Takagi merely teaches that
although the image produced using the roller is very
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007