11281953 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 15, 2010)

Ex Parte Molaire

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 15, 2010

11281953 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 15, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte MICHEL F. MOLAIRE ____________ Appeal 2009-008422 Application 11/281,953 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Decided: January 15, 2010 ____________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-008422 Application 11/281,953 2 This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-19. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An electrophotographic element comprising a charge generation layer including binder and, dispersed in said binder, a physical mixture of: a high speed co-crystallized mixture of TiOPc and TiOFPc having a first intensity peak at 7.4 with respect to X- rays characteristic of Cu Kα at a wavelength of 1.541 Ǻ of the Bragg angle 20 and a second intensity peak at 28.6° +/-0.2°; and a lower speed phthalocyanine pigment. The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of obviousness: Molaire ‘766 5,238,766 Aug. 24, 1993 Molaire ‘189 5,523,189 Jun. 4, 1996 Molaire ‘342 5,614,342 Mar. 25, 1997 Molaire ‘075 2004/0110075 (A1) Jun. 10, 2004 Molaire ‘885 2006/0204885 (A1) Sep. 14, 2006 Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an electrophotographic element comprising a charge generation layer comprising a high speed co- crystallized mixture of TiOPc and TiOFPc and a lower speed phthalocyanine pigment, such as TiOFPc. The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as follows: (a) claims 1-9 and 11-18 over Molaire ‘189 in view of Molaire ‘885 and Molaire ‘766, (b) claims 1-9, 11-13 and 17-18 over Molaire ‘189 in view of Molaire ‘342 and Molaire ‘766, and Appeal 2009-008422 Application 11/281,953 3 (c) claims 1-13 and 17-19 over Molaire ‘189 in view of Molaire ‘342, Molaire ‘075 and Molaire ‘766. Appellant does not present separate, substantive arguments for any particular claim in the three, separately rejected groups of claims. Accordingly, the separately rejected groups of claims stand or fall together. We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner’s reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as his cogent and thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellant. Accordingly, we will adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections of record, and we have the following for emphasis only. There is no dispute that Molaire ‘189 discloses an electrophotographic element comprising a charge generation layer including a binder and mixture of high speed TiOFP and low speed TiOFP. As acknowledged by the Examiner, the charge generation layer of Molaire ‘189 does not include the presently claimed co-crystallized mixture of TiOPc and TiOFPc. However, Appellant acknowledges that Molaire ‘885 discloses a charge generation layer comprising the presently claimed high speed co-crystallized mixture of TiOPc and TiOFPc. Also, as set forth by the Examiner, Molaire ‘885 expressly teaches that the disclosed co-crystals have a higher photosensitivity and are faster than either of the TiOFPc crystals of Molaire ‘189. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the high speed co-crystallized mixture of Molaire ‘885, and presently claimed, for the high speed crystal of Molaire ‘189. Appeal 2009-008422 Application 11/281,953 4 Appellant contends that one would not end up with the present invention if the co-crystal mixture of Molaire ‘885 was substituted for the high speed pigments of Molaire ‘189 “as removal of such relatively high speed pigment ‘189 would eliminate the required low speed pigment of these claims” (sent. bridging, Br. 4-5). We find no merit in this argument. Manifestly, if only the high speed pigment of Molaire ‘189 was substituted with the high speed co-crystal mixture of Molaire ‘885, the charge generation layer of Molaire ‘189 would still retain the disclosed low speed pigment. Appellant points to Figure 2 of the present Specification and submits that it illustrates that there is a synergistic speed effect from the combination of TiOFPc and TiOPc and that “speed is lowest in the co-crystal mixture when the amount is either 100% TiOFPc or 100% TiOPc” (Br. 5, first full para.). However, Appellant has not refuted the Examiner’s reasonable position that such effect would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art inasmuch as Molaire ‘885 expressly teaches that the claimed co- crystallized mixture has a higher photosensitivity and is faster than either of the TiOFPc pigments disclosed by Molaire ‘189. Indeed, Appellant has not set forth what one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected when formulating a charge generation layer comprising the co-crystallized mixture of Molaire ‘885. Turning to the § 103 rejection over Molaire ‘189 in view of Molaire ‘342 and Molaire ‘766, there is no dispute that Molaire ‘342 discloses the use of the presently claimed high speed co-crystallized mixture of pigments. The Examiner’s analysis of the combined teachings of the references and Appellant’s argument are essentially the same as set forth in the rejection Appeal 2009-008422 Application 11/281,953 5 discussed above. As a result, we will not further burden the record with redundant comments. As for the rejection over Molaire ‘189 in view of Molaire ‘342, Molaire ‘075 and Molaire ‘766, Appellant acknowledges that the claimed low speed pigment, a mixture of Cl-TiOPc and TiOFPc, is disclosed by Molaire ‘075 as a low speed pigment. Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the co-crystallized mixture of Molaire ‘075 for the low speed pigment of Molaire ‘189 in order to use a less expensive alternative to TiOFPc. In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kmm PAUL A. LEIPOLD PATENT LEGAL STAFF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 343 STATE STREET ROCHESTER, NY 14650-2201