Appeal No. 96-3992
Application 08/356,618
are read on the disclosure of Kato (Answer, page 3) making particular reference to Figure 1 of the
drawings. In response, Appellant's arguments center on an alleged deficiency of Kato in disclosing a
release agent barrier disposed intermediate the sleeve and the nip forming layer which surrounds and
adheres to the core of the donor structure. The relevant portion of Appellant's claim 5 recites:
a release agent barrier layer disposed
intermediate said sleeve and said nip
forming layer for minimizing permeation
of release agent material into said nip
forming layer.
To meet this particular claim limitation, the Examiner (Answer, page 3) has pointed to reinforcing layer
18 in Kato which is intermediate a sleeve 16 and a nip forming layer 14 as illustrated in Figure 1.
After reviewing Appellant’s arguments (Brief, page 6), we note that Appellant does not contest
the Examiner’s position that Kato’s reinforcing layer 18 functions as a release agent barrier. Appellant
argues, however, that the structure of Kato functions to control release agent flow from the nip-forming
layer 14 in contrast with the claimed invention which controls flow into the nip forming layer. In
Appellant’s view, therefore, Kato’s structure can not be said to anticipate the claimed invention since
such structure does not function in substantially the same way as the recited elements in claim 5.
In response, the Examiner, citing Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1987), argues at pages 5 and 6 of the Answer that the recited phrase “for minimizing permeation of
release agent material into said nip forming layer” is a statement of intended use which would not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007