Appeal No. 2001-2406
Application 09/307,445
Appellant also argues that the specification has clear support
for the criticality of the shrink-fit limitation [id., pages 8-
9]. Appellant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in
Kadowaki that the conductive layer is shrink-fitted onto the
fusing tube or any recognition of the problem solved by
appellant’s invention [id., pages 9-11].
The examiner responds that the phrase “sleeve that is
shrink-fitted onto” is a process limitation and not a structural
limitation. The examiner asserts that the art is substantially
the same as the claimed invention, and the burden has shifted to
appellant to come forth with evidence establishing an unobvious
difference. The examiner also questions the criticality of the
shrink-fit limitation and asserts that the problem could have
been solved without the shrink-fitting [answer, pages 5-6].
Appellant responds by repeating the argument that the
shrink-fit limitation is a structural limitation and not a
process limitation and that the limitation serves a critical
purpose as stated in the claim. Appellant also argues that it
was improper for the examiner to substitute his beliefs as to
what is critical for the claimed invention [reply brief].
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007