Appeal No. 2004-1287
Application 09/211,410 Page 6
such as disclosed in Visser, as discussed above. In this regard,
appellants have not articulated a persuasive argument explaining why
the use of an aluminum filler to enhance conductivity of the
metallic core composite coating of Visser would not have been fairly
suggested by the combined teachings of Visser and Law as reasonably
explained by the examiner. We note that Visser (column 1, lines
25-34) teaches that heat can be applied from the interior of the
roller to the receiver sheet which makes evident that the fuser
roller layers of Visser must conduct some heat just as the fuser
roller layers of Law (column 2, lines 41-62) must be capable of
conducting heat.
To the extent that appellants are asserting that the examples
furnished in the specification establish unexpected results for the
claimed subject matter by the presentation thereof in the brief
(pages 9-12), we note that the question as to whether unexpected
advantages have been demonstrated is a factual question. In re
Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1460, 223 USPQ 1260, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Thus, it is incumbent upon appellants to supply the factual basis
to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the
examiner. See, e.g., In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ
14, 16 (CCPA 1972). Appellants, however, do not provide an adequate
explanation regarding any factual showing in the specification, that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007