Appeal No. 95-4066
Application 07/963,189
percents claimed by appellants are described.
Accordingly, to the extent the rejected claims require
either a silver-palladium alloy or a silver-copper alloy, the
proposed combination of prior art does not make out a prima
facie case of obviousness. As we noted above, Takahashi is
directed to lowering the coefficient of thermal conductivity
of aluminum alloys not silver alloys. Hasegawa does not
describe silver-palladium alloys at all and only broadly
suggests silver-copper alloys to be useful. Additionally,
Hasegawa requires a layer between the recording layer and the
reflective layer we find is excluded by appellants' claims.
Shindo is directed to aluminum-hafnium alloys as reflective
layers and neither describes nor suggests silver-palladium nor
silver-copper alloys. Where the legal conclusion of
obviousness is not supported by facts it cannot stand. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
The examiner's rejection of claim 7 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 from "appellants' admissions" considered
with Tomie in further view of Shindo is affirmed for reasons
expressed above with respect to the examiner's first stated
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007