Appeal No. 2004-1287
Application 09/211,410 Page 3
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Visser in view of Law. Claims
11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Visser in view of Law and Fitzgerald.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellants and
the examiner concerning the issues before us on this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants* arguments set
forth in the brief, appellants have not persuaded us of reversible
error on the part of the examiner. Accordingly, we will affirm the
examiner’s rejections for substantially the reasons set forth by the
examiner in the answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants state that the appealed claims stand or fall
together (brief, page 13). Consequently, we select claim 6 as the
representative claim on which we decide this appeal as to the
examiner’s first stated ground of rejection.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s determination that
Visser discloses a fuser member including: (1) a core that can be
made of metal materials; and (2) a composite material coating
including, inter alia, a cross linked poly(dimethylsiloxane) of a
molecular weight overlapping the molecular weight range specified in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007