Appeal No. 2004-2305
Application No. 10/177,910
OPINION
I. The rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We refer to the examiner’s position regarding this rejection made on pages 3-7 of
the answer. On page 5-11 of the brief, appellants argue this rejection. Appellants
argue that Henry is not in the same field of endeavor and is nonanalogous art.
Appellants also argue that as such, there would have been no expectation of success
that an outer layer taught as useful for a rapid wake-up fuser member in an
electrostatographic apparatus as taught by Henry would work well as an outer layer for
an imaging member for a phase change ink apparatus as taught by Titterington. We
refer to the examiner’s rebuttal made on pages 8-9 of the answer and incorporate the
examiner’s position therein as our own, and add the following for emphasis.
We agree with the examiner that each of the references involves the use of
rollers as supporting surfaces. The determination that a reference is from a
nonanalogous art is two-fold. First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the
inventor’s endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.
In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Following this test, one concerned with a printing apparatus would be chargeable
with knowledge of Titterington and Henry. The apparatus in each of these references
includes rollers. See, for example, Figure 13 of Titterington and Figures 1 and 2 of
Henry. We are unpersuaded by appellants’ comments that the examiner has
broadened the field of endeavor outside the specific industry to include the use of all
roller as a supporting surface. Hence, we agree with the examiner that the applied
references are analogous art.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007