Appeal No. 98-0599
Application 08/434,029
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to create the substrate of Kato as a single piece,
since it has been held that forming in one piece an
article which has formerly been formed in two pieces
and put together involves only routine skill in the
art.
The appellant argues that because Kato’s disk 16 and
control ring 19 are made from different materials, the case
cited by the examiner is not apposite and that it would not
have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to
make Kato’s disk and control ring by a single-piece
construction. That Kato’s magnetic member 18 is made from a
different material is not relevant since the examiner clearly
indicated that the magnetic member 18 is not a part of the
substrate relied on for the rejection. The appellant has not
argued against that position of the examiner.
In rebuttal, the examiner disagrees that Kato discloses
that the material of disk 16 and of control ring 19 are
different. The examiner correctly points out that the
particular material of disk 16 is not specified in Kato, which
states only that element 16 is a circular magnetic sheet. The
examiner further points out that conventional optical disks
are shown in the appellant’s prior art Figure 1 and described
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007