Appeal No. 95-3947
Application 07/812,530
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute the Yanus ‘687 polymeric arylamine for Champ’s arylamine in order to obtain the
greater resistance to cracking, crazing, leaching, crystallization, abrasion, softening and swelling
disclosed by Yanus ‘687 (answer, page 6).
The examiner’s argument is deficient because the examiner has not established that the
combined teachings of Champ and Yanus ‘687 would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the
art to use two charge transporting layers each of which contains the relative amounts of charge
transporting segments and inactive segments recited in appellants’ claims. Champ uses relatively
little arylamine in his outer layer because the wear resistance of the charge transport layer
increases as the ratio of arylamine to binder is decreased. Yanus ‘687, however, states that one of
the characteristics of the Yanus ‘687 charge transport layer is resistance to abrasion when
exposed to blade cleaning (col. 5, lines 22-25). There is no indication in Yanus ‘687 that
decreasing amount of arylamine groups in the charge transport layer would increase the wear
resistance of that layer. Thus, the disclosure by Yanus ‘687 would not have provided one of
ordinary skill in the art, who was interested in wear resistance, with motivation to use two charge
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007