Appeal No. 96-1122
Application 08/087,134
1783-84.
We do not find such an explanation in the above statement
of the rejection. In the “response to argument” section of
the answer (page 4), the examiner argues that appellants
indicate on page 16 of the specification that “arylene”
includes “biphenylene”, and that appellants indicate on pages
19-21 of their specification that the same process is used to
produce essentially the same compounds claimed in the
references and by appellants. The examiner does not explain,
however, why the teaching from the prior art itself would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, use of
biphenylene as Ueda’s group “A”. See Rinehart, 531 F.2d at
1051, 189 USPQ at 147. Ueda is directed toward photosensitive
layers of electrophotographic photosensitive members (col. 1,
lines 9-13) and Matsunaga is directed toward fluorescent
brighteners “for fibers, fabrics, textiles, film, sheet,
shaped articles, paint, ink etc.” (col. 5, lines 45-48). The
examiner has provided no evidence that compounds which were
known to be useful as fluorescent brighteners were known to be
useful in photosensitive layers of electrophotographic
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007