Appeal No. 2003-1892
Application No. 09/681,288
Claims 1 and 19 require an oxygen penetrable UV coating disposed to be on
a side of the substrate opposite the data storage layer. Claim 20 requires light to be
toward at least a portion of data storage media, wherein at least a portion of the light
passes through a UV coating, a reactive layer, a substrate, and a data storage layer.
According to Appellants, Rollhaus does not teach using a UV coating as the oxygen
penetrable barrier. (Brief, p. 8).
The Examiner appreciates that Rollhaus does not disclose an oxygen
penetrable UV coating, but it is the Examiner’s position that Rollhaus’ disclosure of
the use of a semi-permeable oxygen barrier layer would have suggested the
inclusion of a protective layer. Based on the disclosures in Nishida, Shinkai or
Takagishi of protective layers comprising UV curable resins, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to employ these known protective layer materials as the overcoat for read
inhibiting leuco dyes with the expectation that these known materials would provide
some oxygen permeability and provide protection from mechanical damage.
(Answer, p. 5).
The flaw in the Examiner’s reasoning is that Nishida, Shinkai and Takagishi
do not disclose that the protective layers comprising UV curable resins are oxygen
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007