Appeal 2007-3146
Application 10/002,952
The Examiner contends that Tajima inherently discloses the claimed
expansion coefficient under humidity and other properties of the materials
(Answer 4, 5).
Appellants separately argue independent claims 1, 10, 12, and 14, and
dependent claims 11 and 13. Accordingly, non-argued dependent claims
5 and 6, which directly or ultimately depend on claim 1, stand or fall with
claim 1.
OPINION
CLAIMS 1, 10, and 11-13
Appellants argue that Tajima does not disclose a substrate film or a
protective film of an optical information recording medium which has an
expansion coefficient under humidity of less than 5.5 x 10-5 (1/%) (Br. 12).
Appellants further argue that the Examiner has not established via the use of
extrinsic evidence that Tajima inherently discloses the claimed expansion
coefficient under humidity (Br. 15). Appellants argue that the Examiner has
not established that Tajima discloses all the limitation of claim 12 (Br. 16).
Appellants argue that the features of claims 11 and 13, including the
expansion coefficient under humidity, are not disclosed by Tajima (Br.
18-19). Appellants argue that the comparative data on page 16 of the
“Amendment and Response” filed June 10, 2005 and attached to the
Evidence Appendix of the Brief, establish that ultraviolet light curing resins
do not all inherently have the properties of the presently claimed optical data
recording medium such that any prima facie case established by the
Examiner is rebutted (Br. 17).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013