Appeal 2006-1593
Application 09/737,413
Claims 1-10 and 13-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Badesha ‘643 in view of Swift. Claims 1-17, 20
and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Badesha ‘643 in view of Badesha ‘504.
OPINION
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments for patentability and the
evidence relied upon by the Examiner in asserting the obviousness of the
claimed subject matter. In so doing, we find ourselves in agreement with the
Examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) in view of
the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejections. Our reasoning follows.
Appellants state that “Claims 1-21 stand or fall together.” (Br. 4).
Accordingly, we select claim 20 as the representative claim on which we
shall decide this appeal. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997) and In re Wood,
582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
Badesha ‘643 discloses a device (fuser) including: (a) a core (11) that
can be made of various metals; (b) an intermediate layer (22) that can be
formed from a high temperature resistant elastomer, such as a silicone
elastomer; and (c) an outer layer (12) made from an elastomer including a
silicone elastomer and a mica-type layered silicate. The silicone elastomer
and the mica-type layered silicate form a delaminated nanocomposite
(Badesha ‘643, col. 5, l. 65 though col. 6, l. 42 and Figs. 3-5). A heating
member is associated with the core of the device, which device may be in
the form of a roll, plate or belt (Badesha ‘643, col. 6, l. 5-17).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007