Appeal No. 95-3947
Application 07/812,530
transport layers wherein the outer layer contains less arylamine groups than the bottom layer.
Appellants’ claims encompass use of about 30 wt% of charge transporting segments in both of the
charge transport layers. However, the examiner has not established, and it is not apparent, why
the applied references would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to use two layers wherein
each of the layers contains about 30 wt% charge transporting segments. Champ uses two charge
transport layers only because an outer layer which contains little or no arylamine is needed to
provide increased wear resistance. There is no indication in Champ and Yanus ‘687 that if the
Yanus ‘687 abrasion resistant material (col. 5, lines 22-25) were used instead of Champ’s
arylamine/polymeric binder material, there would be a reason for using two charge transport
layers.
As for the rejection of dependent claim 5, the examiner relies upon Yanus ‘512 for a
teaching of use of a bisphenol A reactant (answer, pages 6-7). The Yanus ‘512 disclosure
otherwise is similar to that of Yanus ‘687, and does not remedy the deficiencies in Champ and
Yanus ‘687 regarding the rejection of the independent claims as discussed above.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has not carried his burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of appellants’ claimed invention.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007