Appeal No. 2006-0739
Application No. 09/802,760
polyurethane of Schlueter’s formulation to prevent the
charge control agent from leaching out.
The examiner’s reasoning has two flaws. First, we observe
that Example II of Schlueter relied upon by the examiner does not
mention the amount of polyisocyanate prepolymer used in terms of
a percentage based on the total weight of a polyurethane
elastomer composition. See column 10, line 65 to column 11, line
38. However, the examiner has not explained how the percentage
of polyisocyanate prepolymer used in Example II of Schlueter is
obtained. See the Answer in its entirety. Nor has the examiner
explained why the appellants’ calculation of the percentage of
polyisocyanate prepolymer used in Example II of Schlueter is
incorrect. Compare the Brief, pages 16-21, and the Reply Brief,
pages 1-3, with the Answer in its entirety.
Second, as urged by the appellants (the Brief, pages 7-15)
Schlueter employs a particular polyurethane elastomer due to the
type of a charge control agent employed. Schlueter teaches the
importance of employing its particular charge control agent for
the specific polyurethane elastomer described therein. See
column 4, lines 26-43 and column 7, line 25 to column 8 line 8.
However, the examiner has not adequately explained why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have selected the particular
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007