Appeal No. 1996-1974
Application No. 07/930,738
new or unexpected result. In this regard, we refer to the
examiner’s answer at page 4, l. 23-page 5, l. 2.
In a related vein, appellant argues that in Naarmann the
polymer layer serves as the “primary conductive pathway”;
whereas in appellant’s invention, which includes a relatively
thin polymer layer, it is the carbon black which is said to
serve as the primary conductive element. We find this
argument unconvincing since the relative conductivity of the
polymer layer as compared to the carbon component is a matter
of speculation unsupported by objective evidence and, in any
case, is at best a theoretical distinction which is not
dispositive with regard to the obviousness of appellant’s
invention as claimed.
With respect to the claimed requirement that the coating
function to preserve the conductivity of the carbon black and
inhibit interaction between the carbon black and the
environment, we subscribe to the examiner’s position that
there would be a reasonable expectation that Naarmann’s
corresponding polymer layer would inherently function as
instantly claimed in view of it’s chemical and physical
similarity to appellant’s polymer coatings. Appellant has not
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007