Appeal No. 2003-0479
Application No. 09/416,148
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claims 14-24 over Bingham,
appellants have not convinced us of error in our adoption of the
examiner’s reasoning that “[i]f heating the instant composition
results in cure of the copolymer by the organosilane, as alleged
by the appellants, then heating of the composition of Bingham et
al. must result in at least some cure of fluoroelastomer by the
organosilane whether Bingham et al. teach, desire, and/or realize
it” (page 16 of answer, first paragraph). Although appellants
urge that Bingham’s use of curing agents, such as Dupont Curative
20, “would result in formation of crosslinked polymer with
crosslinking groups having different groups of atoms” (page 6 of
Request), appellants have not established, let alone explained,
why crosslinking with the epoxy silane would not also occur. By
virtue of the “comprises” language, appealed claims 1 and 14 are
“open” to compositions which also comprise the crosslinked
fluoroelastomers of Bingham.
One final point remains. Notwithstanding appellants’
characterization of the claimed invention as directed to a fuser
member comprising a crosslinked product of a fluoroelastomer and
an epoxy silane curative, the appealed claims fail to actually
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007