Appeal No. 2000-1243
Application 08/826,112
Consequently, we are reversing the § 103(a) rejection of
claim 13, which is based on Nagashima in view of Horikago, as
well as the § 103(a) rejection of claims 14-17, 23, and 27, which
is also based on only those two references.
The § 103(a) rejection of claims 19 and 27 is based on
Nagashima in view of Horikago and Yamada. We agree with
Appellants (Brief at 7 n.2) that Yamada, which the examiner cites
for its teaching of using antimony (V), Sb2S5, as a recording
layer, fails to cure the above-noted deficiencies in Nagashima
and Horikago.
The § 103(a) rejection of the remaining claims, i.e., claims
20-22 and 24-26 is based on Nagashima in view of Horikago and
Dubs, which at page 1 describes a dual-layer DVD having a semi-
reflective, semi-transparent layer and a reflective layer. Dubs
explains at page 1 that materials suitable for use as the semi-
reflective layer include: "Metals with a very high ratio of
extinction coefficient k to index of refraction n (k/n>10) or
dielectrics with an index of refraction of more than n=2.59
(reflection >20%) and a small extinction coefficient (k<0.1)."6
Dubs further explains that
6 As noted above, the term "extinction coefficient" is
another name for the imaginary component of the index of refrac-
tion.
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007