Appeal No. 1996-1581
Application No. 08/149,815
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the elastic layer of Ohta for the
conductive layer of Hosaka and arrive at the claimed thickness by optimization.
Appellants do not contest the examiner's finding that it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a protective layer on the charging roll of Hosaka.
However, assuming it would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute an electrically conductive elastic layer for the conductive layer of Hosaka,
appellants rely upon specification data as evidence of unexpected results. According to
appellants, the comparative data found in the present specification establishes
unexpected results for employing an electrically conductive elastic layer in the claimed
thickness range of 100-1200Fm. Specifically, appellants invite attention to Comparative
Example 1 and Examples 1-4 in the specification which demonstrate that a thickness
greater than 1200Fm produces "a charging roll which generates an unacceptable level of
noise, 75 db", whereas Comparative Example 2 and Examples 5-6 show that a thickness
less than 100Fm "results in creases or recesses along the outer surface of the charging
roll, as indicated by the surface roughness Rz of 7.2Fm, and by the variation in printed
images represented by the "ª" in Table 2." (page 4 of principal brief."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007