Appeal No. 1997-3646 Page 4
Application No. 08/172,521
review , we find ourselves in agreement with appellants that4
the examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785, 787-788
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejections.
Lindblad (page 4, lines 41-43) teaches that an
electrophotographic imaging member may be made of a substrate
layer, a charge generating layer, a charge transport layer and
an overcoat layer. Lindblad (page 4, lines 39 and 40)
discloses that the overcoat layer may include a charge
transport compound and a binder, which are bonded through
hydrogen bonds. Lindblad notes that one of the preferred
binders which may be used in the overcoat layer is a
particular polyamide (page 7, lines 29-36). Lindblad is
concerned with the surface roughness of the overcoat layer and
the wear rate thereof and suggests a number of materials that
4We agree with the examiner that the only issues before us relate to
the § 103 rejections as carried forward in the answer. See item No. 6 of the
answer as modified by the supplemental answer in light of the amendment after
final filed December 23, 1996.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007