Appeal No. 1998-0847
Application No. 08/483,762
combination of charge transport layer and cleaning blade would
not have been obvious given the numerous possible combinations
of charge transport layers and cleaning methods available at
the time the invention was made (Brief, page 7; Reply Brief,
pages 1-2). This argument is not persuasive in view of the
teachings of Borsenberger and Pai noted above, namely that
drums were suggested by Pai while Borsenberger teaches that
blades were usually used to clean drum type copiers (see pages
6 and 16). Accordingly, the possible combinations suggested
by the applied prior art were limited and not excessively
numerous.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the
Answer, we determine that the examiner has presented a case of
prima facie obviousness against the subject matter of claim 1
in view of the reference evidence. Appellants submit that the
claimed invention shows unexpectedly superior results (Brief,
pages 7-11;
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007