Appeal No. 1997-0006
Application 08/409,946
recording layer” to the inclusion of any additional materials and layers in any amount, including the
presence of other phthalocyanine pigments than those specified. We note in this respect that only “the
major part by weight of” the unmetallized, ortho-cyano substituted phthalocyanine pigment, separately
or in mixed crystals, “is (are) present in the X-morphological form” which, of course, permits the
presence of other crystalline forms of the pigment separately or in mixed crystals. Thus, the
photosensitive recording layer as specified in claim 1 must contain only at least some X-form,
unmetallized, ortho-cyano substituted phthalocyanine, separately or as part of a mixed crystal.
We now consider the combined teachings of Tamura and Kobata. The examiner submits 3
(answer, pages 4-7) that one of ordinary skill in this art following the teachings of Tamura would have
reasonably selected from the disclosure thereof an unmetallized, cyano substituted phthalocyanine
derivative in the so-called “X-form” crystalline form in preparing photoconductive layers because
Tamura discloses cyano substitution and, along with Kobata, discloses that the use of the X-form of
unmetallized phthalocyanines was known in the art. Indeed, with respect to the latter, we find from the
prior art as acknowledged in appellants’ specification (page 7), namely the discussion of the disclosure4
of United States Patent 3,816,118, that the preparation of X-form, unmetallized, substituted and
unsubstituted phthalocyanine pigments and the use thereof in electrophotographic material were known
in the prior art. Appellants further acknowledge in this context that “[p]hthalocyanine pigments in the
morphological X-form have a broadened spectral sensitivity range in comparison with á- or â- form
(see Fig. 1) and offer an improved photosensitivity, see, e.g. the spectral sensitivity characteristics of a
3In evaluating the teachings of Tamura and Kobata, we must, of course, consider the specific
teachings thereof and the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been
expected to draw therefrom. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). In
evaluating the relevance of the various teachings of these references, we must presume skill on the part
of those of ordinary skill in this art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed.
Cir. 1985).
4It is axiomatic that our consideration of the prior art must, of necessity, include consideration of the
admitted state of the art. In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-40, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975); In re Davies, 305 F.2d 501,
503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007