Appeal No. 2004-2305
Application No. 10/177,910
Furthermore, we disagree with appellants’ comments made at the bottom of page
8 of the brief where appellants argue that there is no suggestion or motivation to modify
or combine Titterington in view of Henry. As pointed out by the examiner on page 7 of
the answer, Henry provides sufficient motivation (when a key resin is added
to a silicon material, it accesses as a reinforcing agent that may cross-link with the
silicon material making it more stable and increasing its strength, column 4, lines 42-
46). One skilled in the art, charged with this knowledge, would have been motivated to
add a key resin to the silicon material of Titterington to improve the stability and strength
of the outer coating of Titterington. We appreciate appellants’ arguments regarding that
Titterington involves a phase change ink apparatus, whereas Henry involves a
xerographic apparatus. However, these arguments are not persuasive as the
motivation provided by the examiner is applicable to an apparatus utilizing an outer
coating made of silicon material whether that apparatus is used for transferring a phase
change ink or whether it is used for charging tone material. In either system, addition
of the Q-resin ultimately improves the shelve-life of the silicon material by improving its
stability and increasing its strength.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
1-8 and 10-20 as being obvious over Titterington in view of Henry.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 9
We refer to page 7 of the answer regarding the examiner’s position for this
rejection.
Claim 9 requires that the outer layer has a hardness from about 10 Shore D to
about 60 Shore D. On page 11 of the brief, appellants refer to the same arguments
presented with regard to the previously mentioned rejection. Our response therefore is
the same as discussed above. Appellants further argue that it would have been
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007