Appeal No. 2004-2305
Application No. 10/177,910
obvious to have substituted the hardness of the layer of a pressure roller as taught by
Bui as the hardness for the imaging member of the phase change ink machine as
taught by Titterington. Brief, page 12. We are not persuaded by this argument. As
pointed out by the examiner on page 10 of the answer, the teaching relied upon in Bui
was used to illustrate that Shore D values of 40-45, for example, are characteristic of
such coatings. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, the particularly claimed
Shore D values recited in claim 9 are deemed obvious design expedients.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 9
as being obvious over Titterington in view of Henry further in view of Bui.
III. Conclusion
Each of the rejections is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(effective Sept. 13, 2003; 69 Fed.
Reg. 49960 (Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat., Office 21 (Sept. 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED
Edward C. Kimlin )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Peter F. Kratz ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Beverly A. Pawlikowski )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007