Appeal No. 2006-0571
Application No. 09/951,407
within the meaning of § 102. While it is conceivable that a
toner-developed layer may also receive further imaging toner, we
are confident that one of ordinary skill in the art would
interpret the claimed toner image-receiving layer as one that
does not contain developing toner.
As for the examiner's § 103 rejections, the additionally
cited references do not remedy the basic deficiency of Mohri
discussed above.
One final point remains. Appellants' specification, at
page 2, first full paragraph, relates that it was known in the
art to solve a blocking problem with fine organic particles
incorporated into the image-receiving layer of an
electrophotographic material. Although the specification does
not disclose whether the organic particles of the acknowledged
prior art are synthetic resins, as presently claimed, the
examiner should investigate whether such is the case.
Accordingly, we remand this application to the examiner to
clarify the record with respect to any distinction between the
admittedly known organic particles in an image-receiving sheet
and organic synthetic particles within the scope of the appealed
claims.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007