Ex parte TATEWAKI et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No.  95-3481                                                          
          Application 08/017,977                                                       


               According to appellants, the present invention is an                    
          improved method for forming a reflective layer of aluminum on an             
          optical disk.  This method is accomplished by introducing a small            
          amount of oxygen into the atmosphere during formation of the                 
          aluminum reflective layer by the well-known techniques of                    
          evaporation or sputtering.  This process forms a stable oxide of             
          aluminum dispersed within the aluminum layer to improve the                  
          degradation property (brief, pages 1-2).                                     
               As stated by appellants on page 2 of the brief, the claims              
          stand or fall together.  Accordingly, we will limit our                      
          discussion of the claims to the broadest claim on appeal,                    
          independent claim 4, which is reproduced below:                              

                    4.  A method for producing a reflective film                       
          essentially composed of aluminum on an optical disc, wherein                 
          aluminum oxide is interdispersed within the aluminum, said method            
          comprising introducing an amount of oxygen into an atmosphere in             
          the course of forming said reflective film on a transparent                  
          substrate of said optical disc wherein the amount of oxygen                  
          introduced into the atmosphere is such that the oxide of aluminum            
          contained in the formed reflective film bears an oxygen to                   
          aluminum atomic ratio between 1.3 and 2.0.                                   

               No prior art was relied upon by the examiner in the                     
          rejection of the appealed claims.  Claims 4, 7 and 8 stand                   
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, ?as incomplete             
          for not reciting the parameters of the method for producing the              

                                           2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007