Appeal No. 2001-2406
Application 09/307,445
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 1, the
examiner finds that Kadowaki teaches everything claimed except
for the conductive metal layer being shrink-fitted onto the
insulating core. The examiner asserts that the method of forming
the thin conductive layer onto the fusing roller is given little
patentable weight in apparatus claims without evidence showing an
unobvious difference [answer, pages 4-5].
Appellant argues that the limitation “having a shrink fit
on” [sic, sleeve that is shrink-fitted onto] is an apparatus
limitation and not a method limitation [brief, page 8].
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007