Appeal No. 2000-0291
Application 08/873,958
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied
by the examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal. The
examiner, in support of the rejection, states:
AAPA teaches that it is old and well known
in the art to repair fuser members by
removing the outer coatings and then
applying new coatings to obtain a new
fusing surface Moxon teaches that it is old
and well known to repair rollers by
removing the outer surface until the
desired characteristics are reached,
wherein material is removed from the
surface but no additional material is
added. It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to Modify the method
as taught by AAPA by only removing material
to obtain a new working surface since to do
so is old an dwell [sic] known in the art
as taught by Moxon for the purpose of
achieving an easier, simpler, less
complicated, less time consuming
process.[Final Rejection at page 2]
The appellants argue that neither Moxon nor AAPA
discloses that there is no recoating of the outer layer with
outer layer material and that persons skilled in the art would
have no motivation to look to Moxon in regard to spent fuser
members because Moxon is nonanalogous art.
Moxon discloses that particulate matter which accumulates
on a rolling mill utilized to roll metal can be removed by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007