Appeal No. 2003-0709
Application No. 09/332,240
decreases (i.e., a higher crystallization rate), which meets the
increase of the linear velocity of the recording layer in said
radial direction" (page 10 of specification, first paragraph).
Appealed claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over JP '827.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection.
Although JP '827 discloses an optical information medium for
rewritable recording comprising the presently claimed first and
second dielectric layers, recording layer and metal mirror layer,
the examiner appreciates that the reference does not disclose
that the recording layer has a gradually increasing thickness
from the inner to the outer radius, as presently claimed.
Indeed, the reference teaches quite the opposite, i.e., a
recording layer wherein its thickness gradually decreases from
the inner to the outer radius. Notwithstanding this lack of a
teaching of the claimed thickness for the recording layer, the
examiner legally concludes that "it would have been an obvious
matter of design choice to change the direction of size change
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007