Appeal No. 1997-0495
Application No. 08/399,787
failed to establish that an artisan with ordinary skill would
have had a reasonable expectation of success in providing
Kuroiwa with a reflecting layer. Indeed, the aforementioned
fact that Kuroiwa’s recording materials do not correspond to
those of Chen or Yamada and seemingly do not suffer the
problems addressed by Chen or Yamada militates against such an
expectation. In re O’Farrell, id.
In addition to the foregoing, the examiner has not
advanced any probative evidence in support of his conclusion
that “[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art .
. . to optimize the thicknesses of the layers [of the modified
Kuroiwa recording medium] to increase the reflectivity in
excess of 70%” (answer, pages 6-7) as required by the appealed
claims. More fundamentally, the examiner has not even pointed
to any specific teaching in the applied prior art which
evinces that the here claimed element reflectivity
characteristic constitutes a perimeter recognized in the prior
art as being result effective. Moreover, the examiner has2
2We recognize that Chen discloses certain reflectivities.
However, these reflectivities relate to the active material in
crystalline, amorphous and liquid states whereas the
reflectivity of the appealed claims relates to the recordable
element reflectivity. Further, as previously indicated, the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007