Ex Parte Pickering et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 2009

10636470 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JERRY A. PICKERING, SUZANNE P. CLARK, and
SUSAN C. BARUCH
____________

Appeal 2008-4953
Application 10/636,470
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: January 29, 2009
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

This is in response to a Request for Rehearing, dated November 26,
2008, of our Decision, mailed September 30, 2008, wherein we affirmed the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of all appealed claims.
Appeal 2008-4953
Application 10/636,470

In support of their Rehearing Request, Appellants contend that the
Board misapprehends the teachings of Chen (‘186) and (‘210) relative to the
present claimed invention. Appellants contend the “claimed invention
requires a plastic sleeve comprising a fluoroplastic (not merely any outer
layer having PTFE or PFA incorporated therein), while the applied
references are actually [drawn] towards the use of [a] fuser member surface
layer[] comprising either a silicon-based elastomer or rubber or a
fluoroelastomer.” Appellants further contend that plastic sleeves as
employed in the present invention are specifically distinguished from
elastomeric coatings layers. (Request 1-2).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because they are based on the
incorrect proposition that we misapprehend the teachings of Chen (‘186) and
(‘210). Chen (‘210) discloses that the outer layer of a fuser member could
have been formed from either silicone materials or fluorine polymer
materials. (Col. 2, ll. 32-35). Chen (‘210) discloses that blends of PTFE and
PFA fluoropolymers are suitable for incorporation into the outer layer of a
fuser member.
Appellants contend that plastic sleeves as employed in the present
invention are specifically distinguished from elastomeric coating layers.
(Request 2). Appellants further contend that the term “plastic sleeve” as
employed within the context of the present origin refers to sleeve or layer
that has certain properties and problems associated there with. (Request 3)
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth in
our Decision on page 6. Chen ‘210 discloses PTFE and PFA
fluoropolymers are suitable for the outer layer of a fuser member.
2
Appeal 2008-4953
Application 10/636,470

Appellants consider PTFE and PFA to be fluoropolymers is evidenced from
their Specification (Spec. 13). Appellants have not explained how the PTFE
and PFA outer layer of Chen is patentably distinguished from the outer layer
of the presently claimed invention. Appellants have not explained how the
PTFE and PFA outer layer of Chen does not possess the same properties as
the sleeve of the claimed invention. Appellants have not directed us to
evidence to support their allegations that the coating techniques utilized in
the cited prior art results in a layer with properties differing from the claimed
invention.
For the above stated reasons and for the reasons expressed in our
Decision, the evidence of record continues to support a prima facie case of
obviousness, and Appellants continue to fail in their attempts to show error
in this obviousness conclusion.
The Request for Rehearing is DENIED.

3
Appeal 2008-4953
Application 10/636,470

PL Initial:
sld

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
PATENT LEGAL STAFF
343 STATE STREET
ROCHESTER, NY 14650-2201
4