Appeal No. 2002-1235
Application No. 08/823,823
of the admitted prior art that a recordable disk has a power
calibration area that must be read by a laser before recording is
accomplished. The examiner then concludes that "[t]o cover any
area of any subject in order to prevent an operation to take
place in such an area is a common practice and is nothing new in
the art" (page 4 of Answer, third paragraph). The examiner
further cites Figure 1 of Takahashi for its depiction of a
recording inhibition seal.
The flaw in the examiner's reasoning is that it does not
rely upon a prior art disclosure which discloses covering a
functional area of a disk, let alone the presently claimed power
calibration area. As explained by appellant, Example 1 of
Takahashi utilizes an inhibition seal which presents a logical
choice for not recording but does not physically interfere with
the functional area of the recording medium. Accordingly, the
examiner's conclusion of obviousness is without the requisite
factual support. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 177-78 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). In
addition, the examiner has failed to articulate the rejection of
separately argued claims 4-7, or respond to appellant's arguments
for these claims. Such a failure constitutes reversible error.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007