Appeal No. 95-2898
Application 08/053,193
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of this
claim but we will reverse the rejection of the remaining claims
on appeal for the reasons set forth infra.
Turning first to the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, Appellants argue on page 8 of the brief that the
combination of Kikuchi and Azuma do not render obvious claim 1,
which has claws formed in the wall portion which project from
said outside peripheral surface of said cylindrical wall and
wherein a plurality of slits formed in the cylindrical wall
render the first wall portion flexible so that the first wall
portion is elastically displaced radially inwardly to a deformed
position to allow the center core to be attached to said optical
disk. Appellants further state that Kikuchi and Azuma cannot be
combined to render claim 1 obvious.
Turning to Kikuchi, we find that Kikuchi teaches an
optical recording medium comprising an optical disk which has a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007