Appeal No. 2003-1893
Application No. 09/770,018
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we select claim 1 from
all of the claims on appeal and decide the propriety of the
examiner’s rejection based on this claim alone consistent with
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2001). Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of curing a fuser member suitable for use in an
image forming system, comprising the steps of:
providing a fuser member having a substrate, a silicone
rubber base coating disposed about the substrate, and an outer
cross-linkable fluoropolymer coating:
exposing the polymer coating to infrared radiation for a
selected curing time to stimulate specific bonds in the cross-
linkable fluoropolymer coating to generate a cross-linked
fluoropolymer.
PRIOR ART
The examiner relies on the following sole prior art
reference:
Marvil et al. (Marvil) 5,998,034 Dec. 7, 1999
Alger, Polymer Science Dictionary, p. 97 (1st ed., New York,
Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 1989)1
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
1The examiner is relying on this dictionary to explain the
meaning of the term “cure” used in Marvil. See In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1284 (Fed.
Cir. 1991)(“Extrinsic evidence may be considered when it is used
to explain, but not to expand, the meaning of a reference.”)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007