Appeal No. 2001-1209
Application No. 09/106,281
changes that is being relied upon as a suggestion for the
proposed combination. “The test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference....Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller,
supra. See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385,
389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 967, 179
USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973). Further, we agree with the Examiner
(Answer, page 6) that the platen roller 1 in Fukumoto and the
fuser roller 44 in Pfeuffer have similar functions, i.e., to
transfer the print media during the printing operation.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome
by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of representative independent claim 2,
as well as claims 3, 4, and 6-8 which stand with claim 2, is
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 9 in which the Masaru reference is
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007