Ex Parte Namisaki et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 22, 201714478291 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/478,291 09/05/2014 Kousuke NAMISAKI 0951-0265PUS2 6006 127226 7590 11/27/2017 BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP 8110 Gatehouse Road Suite 100 East Falls Church, VA 22042-1248 EXAMINER ROYSTON, JOHN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2855 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): mailroom @ bskb. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KOUSUKE NAMISAKI, KOHICHI YAMAUCHI, and TAKASHI YAMANAKA Appeal 2017-003687 Application 14/478,291 Technology Center 2800 Before MARK NAGUMO, AVELYN M. ROSS, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed September 5, 2014; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated January 15, 2016; Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.”) dated April 15, 2016; and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated November 18, 2016. 2 Appellant is Applicant, Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha, which according to the Appeal Brief is the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-003687 Application 14/478,291 BACKGROUND The invention relates to an image forming apparatus. Spec. 12. After transferring a toner image to a recording paper, a guide member guides the recording paper through a nip region between rotatable members which apply heat and pressure to fix the toner image to the recording paper. Id. 13. According to Appellant, toner inadvertently carried on a backside of the recording paper tends to accumulate at a downstream end of the guide member, causing the trailing edge of the recording paper to be smeared. Id. H 11—12. Providing a flexible sheet projecting from the guide member’s downstream end is said to reduce undesired toner accumulation on the guide member. Id. 1129. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An image forming apparatus, comprising: a fixing section, including two rotatable members that are pressed against each other, for fixing a toner on a recording paper; a guide member for guiding the recording paper to which a toner has been transferred to a nip region between the two rotatable members; and a flexible sheet provided on a guide face of the guide member for the recording paper, wherein the flexible sheet is provided with a projected portion that projects beyond an end portion of the guide member downstream in a paper transport direction, wherein the end portion of the guide member is an end of the guide member that is located downstream in the paper transport direction. Br. Claims Appendix (emphasis added to highlight the disputed recitation). 2 Appeal 2017-003687 Application 14/478,291 REJECTIONS I. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Shimizu.3 II. Claims 2-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shimizu and Takagaki.4 Rejection I Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds that Shimizu describes an image forming apparatus having, referring to Shimizu’s Figure 2, a flexible metal sheet 162a positioned on a guide face 161al of a guide member 160 for guiding a recording paper to pair of rotating members 151, 152. Final Act. 2—3. Shimizu’s Figure 2 is an enlarged cross-sectional view of an unfixed-image-bearing-paper transport guide (Shimizu 5:37—39) and is reproduced below: OPINION pp 3 US 7,680,449 B2, issued March 16, 2010 (“Shimizu”). 4 US 7,526,242 B2, issued April 28, 2009 (“Takagaki”). 3 Appeal 2017-003687 Application 14/478,291 The Examiner finds that Shimizu’s sheet 162a wraps around the downstream5 end of guide member 160 and, therefore, necessarily projects beyond the guide member by at least the thickness of the metal sheet. Final Act. 3 (providing the Examiner’s annotated copy of Shimizu’s Figure 2); Ans. 4, 7. Appellant acknowledges that the wrapped end of Shimizu’s metal sheet 162a “goes beyond the end of [the] guide member,” but contends that it does not “project beyond” the guide member end. Br. 6. Appellant argues that the term “project” means “to stick out beyond the edge of something.” Id. (referencing the Oxford Dictionary). The problem with this argument is that even under Appellant’s proffered definition, Shimizu’s sheet 162a can be characterized as projecting because, as Appellant recognizes, it goes beyond (and therefore sticks out beyond) the downstream edge of guide member 160. Appellant also argues that Shimizu’s metal sheet is not provided “on a guide face of the guide member,” as recited, because Shimizu’s sheet 162a is provided on an “inner surface of the guide body,” whereas the recording paper in Shimizu is supported by ribs which extend from that surface through slits in the metal sheet. Br. 5. The Examiner explains, in response, that Shimizu’s guide member includes both the sheet-covered surface and the paper-supporting ribs extending therefrom, such that Shimizu’s sheet- covered surface is a guide face of the guide member. Ans. 5. Shimizu’s description of guide 160 supports the Examiner’s explanation. See Shimizu 14:21—24 (“The covering portion 162a [of sheet 162] is disposed so as to 5 Downstream is relative to the paper transport direction and, therefore, applies to the left end of guide member 161 as it is depicted in Shimizu’s Figure 2. 4 Appeal 2017-003687 Application 14/478,291 cover the guide surface 161al [of guide 160], which is the upper surface of the paper-transport-path-facing portion 161a.”). Appellant does not reply to the Examiner’s explanation set forth in the Answer,6 and does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Shimizu’s sheet-covered surface is a guide face of the guide member. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuasively identify any claimed element that is not also found in Shimizu. Accordingly, Rejection I is sustained. Rejection II With regard to Rejection II, Appellant relies on the same arguments as are presented against Rejection I. See Br. 5—6. We, therefore, sustain Rejection II for the reasons set forth above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 6 No Reply Brief is of record. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation