Ex Parte Nakada et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2004-0375                                                        
          Application 09/841,926                                                      


          roller, transfer roller or cleaning roller used around a                    
          photoreceptor drum of an image forming apparatus (specification,            
          page 1, lines 7-10).  Claim 1 is illustrative:                              
               1.   A semiconductor roller comprising:                                
               a semiconductive elastic layer made of silicone rubber                 
          comprising carbon black formed around a conductive shaft body,              
               wherein a resin layer including a hard film material is                
          formed on the outer circumference of said elastic layer via a               
          coupling agent layer, wherein the hard film material further                
          comprises an amino resin and a crosslinking component, wherein              
          the ratio of the amino resin to the crosslinking component is               
          about 40/50 to about 20/80 by weight.                                       
                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
          Ishii et al. (Ishii)            5,925,893          Jul. 20, 1999            
          Takagi et al. (Takagi)          6,067,434          May  23, 2000            
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being           
          unpatentable over Takagi in view of Ishii.                                  
                                       OPINION                                        
               We affirm the aforementioned rejection.                                
               The appellants state that the claims stand or fall together            
          (brief, page 3).  We therefore limit our discussion to one claim,           
          i.e., claim 1.  See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37                
          USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR                              
          § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).                                                        

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007