Appeal No. 1996-1581
Application No. 08/149,815
composition or a thermoplastic elastomer and has a thickness in the range of 100 -
1200Fm. According to appellants, they "have discovered that a thickness of the elastic
layer less than 100Fm does not sufficiently cover and eliminate cell defects in the foam
body" (page 3 of principal brief), whereas "a thickness of the conductive elastic layer
greater than 1200Fm does not sufficiently reduce noise generated during use of the
claimed charging roll." (page 4 of principal brief).
Appealed claims 1, 4-8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hosaka in view of Ohta. Also, claim 9 stands rejected under 35 §
U.S.C. 103 over the same combination of references.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions of appellants and the
examiner. As a result of such review we will not sustain the examiner's rejections.
Hosaka discloses a charging roll that comprises appellants' foam layer and
resistance adjusting layer but does not comprise the presently claimed electrically
conductive elastic layer and protective layer. In particular, Hosaka teaches that the
conductive layer is either a resin such as polyester or thin metallic sheets. To remedy this
deficiency of Hosaka, the examiner relies upon Ohta. The charging roll of Ohta does not
comprise the foam layer of appellants and Hosaka but does comprise an electrically
conductive elastic layer. According to the examiner, it would have been
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007