Appeal No. 1999-0056
Application No. 08/734,431
Appealed claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Chapman in view of Skoog, Howe and
Kovacs, taken together, or in further view of Shuttleworth, or
in still further view of Namba.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, it is
our judgment that the examiner has not presented sufficient
evidence to support a legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejections.
The examiner apparently acknowledges that Chapman, the
primary reference, which appellants concede describes some of
the materials used in the present invention, does not disclose
the claimed thickness for the recording layer. However, it is
the examiner's position that, in accordance with Beer's Law,
[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled
in the art to coat the Chapman et al. '015 to
higher optical densities merely by increasing
the coating thickness or absorber
concentration . . . and increase the
sensitivity of the recording medium merely
due to the increased absorption of the laser
light by the
layer . . ." [page 5 of Answer, last
paragraph].
In addition, the examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art "to increase the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007