Appeal 2006-2835
Application 10/033,496
Claim 18 illustrates Appellants’ invention of an imaging member, and
is representative of the claims on appeal:
18. An imaging member comprising an imaging layer and a base
wherein said base comprises a thermoplastic polymer closed cell foam core
sheet, wherein said foam core sheet has a topside and a bottom side, wherein
said topside of said foam core sheet is adhered to an upper sheet, and said
bottom side of said foam core sheet is adhered to a lower sheet, wherein said
foam core sheet has a modulus of between 100 and 2758 MPa and a tensile
toughness between 0.344 and 35 MPa, and wherein each of said upper and
lower sheets has a modulus of between 1380 and 20000 MPa and a
toughness between 1.4 and 210 MPa wherein each of said upper and lower
sheets is selected from at least one member of the group consisting of paper,
polyolefins, and polystyrene.
The references relied on by the Examiner are:
Dontula (Dontula ‘976) US 6,447,976 B1 Sep. 10, 2002
Dontula (Dontula ‘656) US 6,537,656 B1 Mar. 25, 2003
We refer to the Answer and to the Brief and Reply Brief for a
complete exposition of the positions advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants.
OPINION
The grounds of rejection based on the Dontula references are
essentially the same, and thus we, like the Examiner (Answer 6-8) and
Appellants (Br. 9-10), focus on the ground of rejection based on Dontula
‘976 as representative of the grounds of rejection.
It is well settled that the Examiner has the burden of making out a
prima facie case of anticipation in the first instance by pointing out where
each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the
claim, is described identically in the reference, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, in a manner sufficient to have placed a person of
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007