Appeal No. 2000-1244
Application 08/826,111
In the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 8, 10
through 20 and 22 through 32 as being unpatentable over Hintz in
view of Utsumi, the Examiner relies on Hintz for all the
teachings except for the use of amorphous selenium in a partially
reflective layer. See pages 3 and 4 of the Examiner’s answer.
For the teaching of amorphous selenium, the Examiner relies on
Utsumi. See page 5 of the Examiner’s answer.
In the reply brief, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
answer is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the
Utsumi reference. Appellants argue that Utsumi is specifically
and clearly directed only to an electrostatic medium, not to an
optical medium. In Utsumi, amorphous selenium and other similar
materials are simply provided as “photoconductive or electrically
conductive materials in order to stabilize charges carried
thereby.” Appellants point us to column 9, lines 6 through 15,
of Utsumi.
Appellants also argue that Utsumi suggests that amorphous
selenium has favorable electrostatic properties so as to
stabilize charges carried thereby. Appellants argue that Utsumi
does not begin to suggest any optical properties (e.g.,
reflectivity and transparency,) that amorphous selenium might
have, let alone how such optical properties could be used as
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007