Appeal No. 2003-0479
Application No. 09/416,148
inclusion of Yu’s epoxy silane coupling agent in the fuser layer
of Chen would not necessarily, or inherently, result in a
crosslinked product of a fluoroelastomer and an epoxy silane. As
noted in our decision, appellants do not dispute the examiner’s
legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to substitute the epoxy silane of Yu
for the functional silane of Chen.
Appellants contend that, unlike in the claimed invention,
“Chen et al. teaches curing of a fluorocarbon by the use of a
basic nucleophilic cure system such as a bisphenol” (page 2 of
Request, third paragraph). However, while it is true that the
basic necleophile of Chen cures the fluorocarbon, we find it
reasonable to conclude that the fluorocarbon of Chen would also
be crosslinked by the epoxy silane in view of Figs. 3 and 4 of
Yu. Appellants’ Request, which includes a citation of Flory’s
Principles of Polymer Chemistry, does not address the mechanism
depicted by Yu, which is cited in our original decision. To the
extent that the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of appellants’
Request addresses this issue, appellants have not established
that the bonding depicted by Yu would not be considered
crosslinking by one of ordinary skill in the art.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007