Appeal No. 2001-0651
Application 08/134,187
from being scratched or otherwise damaged. Thus, we will sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In accordance with appellants’ grouping of the claims
(brief, page 6), we consider that claims 2 through 10, 31 through
40 and 341 through 354 will fall with claim 1. It follows that
the examiner’s respective rejections of those claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will also be sustained.
Claim 61 has been selected as being representative of
appellants’ second group of claims set forth on page 6 of the
brief. Claim 61 is similar to method claim 1, but further
includes the step of “preheating the imprinted disk to alter the
surface energy of the imprinted disk whereby a protective coating
will more securely adhere to the imprinted disk.” This claim
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Copley in view of Bradshaw as applied above, and further in
view of Prinz.
In the examiner’s view, Prinz provides a teaching of
preheating foils or film materials formed of plastic, paper or
metal via a corona discharge treatment that alters the surface
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007