Appeal No. 95-3749
Application No. 07/953,619
Even were we to interpret the claimed substrate as inclusive
of a substrate having a blocking layer as suggested by the
examiner, our conclusion would not be changed. We are of the
view that Takano and Yu’481 would not have suggested one of
ordinary skill in the art to the claimed electrostatographic
imaging member within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
neither references requires their charge blocking layers to have
a thermal contraction coefficient within + 2 x 10 of the charge-5
transport layer as is with the claimed substrate. Thus, we
reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 6 through 13, 21
and 25.
The examiner has also rejected claims 23 and 26 through 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings
of Yu’481 and Rodriguez and Billmeyer. The examiner’s rejection
is predicated on the contention that it would have been obvious
to induce cross-linking of the substrate of Yu’481 with gamma
radiation as taught by Billmeyer and Rodriguez “since radiation
cross-linking has a beneficial effect on the mechanical
properties of some polymers.” We do not share the examiner’s
contention.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007