Appeal No. 2000-0291 Application 08/873,958 fusing surface that is deficient. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the appellants’ brief. The prior art The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are: Moxon 3,604,239 Sept. 14, 1971 The prior art admitted by the appellants to be old appearing on pages 1 to 2 of the specification. The rejections Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. � 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) in view of Moxon. Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 10, June 7, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 9, filed May 24, 1999) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst. OPINION 2Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007