Appeal No. 2003-1774
Application No. 09/797,038
hindered phenol antioxidant as a suitable agent for improving
durability against ozone in the charged transport layer of Mori.
While appellants maintain that the examiner has extracted “far
too much than is reasonable [sic, reasonably] supported from the
general statement in Mori” (page 9 of principal brief, first
paragraph), appellants have presented no substantive arguments
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded
from selecting the claimed reaction product of p-cresol and
dicyclopentadiene as the hindered phenol antioxidant in the
charge transport layer of Mori.
Appellants present essentially the same argument against the
other § 103 rejections applied by the examiner.
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claims 1-7 over Haggquist
as the primary reference, appellants present the additional
argument that Haggquist is not prior art. Appellants come to
this conclusion because “[a]ll of the inventors in Haggquist are
inventors (along with others) on this application, and the
Haggquist publication is less than a year from the filing of this
application” (page 9 of principal brief, paragraph 4). However,
since Haggquist lists three inventors and the present application
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007