Appeal No. 95-3749
Application No. 07/953,619
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 2, 3, 6 through 13, 21 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Yu’481 in view of Takano;
(2) Claims 23, 26 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yu’481 in view of Rodriguez and Billmeyer;
(3) Claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Yu’481 in view of Rodriguez and Billmeyer as applied to claim 26
above, and further in view of Yu’239.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record before us,
including all of the arguments advanced by the examiner and
appellants in support of their respective positions. This review
leads us to conclude that the examiner’s § 103 rejections are not
well-founded. Accordingly, we will reverse all of the examiner’s
§ 103 rejections. Our reasons for this determination follow.
The claimed subject matter is directed to an electro-
statographic imaging member which comprises a substrate and a
charge transport layer applied by solution coating in methylene
chloride. The substrate comprises a polymer selected from
polyamide/nylons, polycarbonate/polybutylene terephthalate
alloys, polyphthalamides, polyesters liquid crystals, phenolic
polymer and diallyl phthalates (claim 21) or a polymer subjected
to gamma ray irradiation (claim 26). The polymer must be
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007