Appeal No. 1998-0150
Application No. 08/435,224
Accordingly, we interpret the appealed claims as requiring
their layer containing a roughening agent to have a sufficient
number
of protruding roughening particles and to be located just
below the claimed metal recording layer to “induce local
deformation spots into this metal [recording] layer.”
Having interpreted the appealed claims as indicated
above, we review the content of the prior art relied upon by
the examiner to determine whether the examiner has established
a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our
review indicates that both Tabei and Wada describe a heat-mode
recording material comprising a support, a metal recording
layer, and a protective element. As is apparent from pages 4
and 5 of the Answer, the examiner recognizes that both Tabei
and Wada do not describe a roughening agent containing layer
located just below a metal recording layer, providing a
sufficient number of protruding roughening particles therefrom
for the purpose of inducing “local deformation spots” into the
metal recording layer.
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies on the
disclosure of Yoshihara or Grzeskowiak. However, not only do
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007