Ex parte WAYMAN et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 1998

08169836 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 16, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte WILLIAM H. WAYMAN and RASIN MOSER
____________
Appeal No. 95-5098
Application 08/169,8361
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
21, 22, 25, and 26. The other claims remaining in the
application are claims 17, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 28, which have
been indicated as allowable.
Claim 21 reads as follows:
Appeal No. 95-5098
Application 08/169,836
2
21. A heat and pressure fuser for fusing toner images
onto substrates, said fuser comprising:
an electrically resistive fusing belt having first and
second segments;
means for applying a voltage to said first segment for
elevating the temperature thereof and means for selectively
applying one of a plurality of voltages to said second segment
for elevating the temperature thereof for effecting images having
different degrees of gloss;
a plurality of electrically conductive rollers for
supporting said belt for movement in an endless path; and
a pressure roller cooperating with one of said
plurality of rollers to form an extended fusing zone
therebetween.
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Kogure et al. (Kogure) 4,813,372 Mar. 21, 1989
Ohashi et al. (Ohashi) 4,973,824 Nov. 27, 1990
OPINION
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ohashi in view of Kogure. The examiner
correctly states that Kogure discloses applying electrical power
to a heat fusing roller to generate heat. Examiner’s Answer at
4-5. However, as appellants point out, that is not the claimed
invention. Appeal Brief at 5.
The claimed invention involves applying a voltage to
segments of a fusing belt, not to a fusing roller. There is no
suggestion offered by the examiner for applying voltage to
Appeal No. 95-5098
Application 08/169,836
3
segments of a fusing belt. Inasmuch as the examiner has not
addressed that claim requirement, the examiner has not stated a
prima facie case. Therefore, the rejection will not be
sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection is not sustained.
REVERSED

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 95-5098
Application 08/169,836
4
Ronald Zibelli
Xerox Corporation
Xerox Square 020
Rochester, NY 14644
Appeal No. 95-5098
Application 08/169,836
5