Appeal No. 1998-0847
Application No. 08/483,762
layer (see Examples I-V) but also presents Examples where the
diamine compound is stabilized by the addition of a methane
compound to produce beneficial results (see Examples VI and
VII). Therefore the Comparative Example in appellants’
specification where only the diamine compound is present is
not representative of the closest prior art (Pai).
Based on the totality of the record, giving due
consideration to appellants’ arguments and evidence, we
determine
that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in
favor of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims
2-4, 6-10, 12 and 22 which stand or fall with claim 1, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Pai in view of Borsenberger and Oki or
Frankel is affirmed.
The claims in Group II do not require a drum
configuration or a cleaning blade but specify that the weight
ratio of the methane compound to the diamine compound “is at
least 0.12:1.” See claim 13 on appeal. Therefore appellants
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007