Appeal No. 2004-1287
Application 09/211,410 Page 5
what is generally known provides the motivation to determine where
in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination
of percentages.”); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215,
219 (CCPA 1980)(“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result
effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill
of the art.”); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
(CCPA 1955)(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed
in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
We agree with the examiner’s obviousness position.
Appellants’ principal arguments are directed to a proposed
modification that the examiner did not present in the stated
rejection; that is, a modification of the fuser roller substrate
of Law. We decline to address such a misdirected argument. We
recognize that the fuser roller of Law is disclosed as being made
of a plastic material as opposed to the here claimed metallic fuser
core (roller). Nonetheless, appellants have not fairly explained
how the material construction of the roller of Law would vitiate
against the teachings of Law with respect to employing an aluminum
powder filler as an alternative or in addition to a metal oxide
filler in an outer composite layer to control and enhance the
conductivity of that layer in a fuser device having a metallic core
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007