Appeal No. 96-1837
Application No. 08/083,372
Viewing the examiner’s rejection and rationale therefor in
the most favorable light, it is the examiner’s position that
Matsudaira discloses the claimed subject matter but for the
buffer having a thermal expansion coefficient substantially
intermediate the thermal expansion coefficients of the two
adjacent members and for the fixing force recited in claims 4 and
7. In order to compensate for these deficiencies, the examiner
cites Rajac for a teaching of a buffer having a similar thermal
expansion coefficient as the adjacent members and contends that
the claimed force range would have been obvious since this
amounts to only “routine experimentation and optimization”
[principal answer-page 5].
First, with regard to the claimed force range, the range
recited requires a particular relationship between the fixing
force, the mass of the recording medium, the acceleration acting
on the medium and a minimum friction coefficient. The examiner
cannot explain such a specific limitation away by merely labeling
the requirement “routine experimentation and optimization.”
In any event, we never reach the limitations of the
dependent claims because, in our view, the examiner’s reasoning
with regard to the rejection of the independent claims is flawed.
While Rajac teaches the use of a buffer having a similar thermal
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007