Appeal No. 2003-0709
Application No. 09/332,240
from one direction to another direction, since such modification
would have involved a mere change in the size of a component
(from one direction to another direction)" (page 4 of Answer,
fourth paragraph). However, the examiner has not refuted
appellants' argument that "[t]his is not a change in size, as the
Examiner contends, but is a change in shape since the recording
layers of the patent and of the optical recording medium defined
by Claim 1 may have the same weight and surface area but have
different relative thickness" (page 7 of Brief, last paragraph).
Moreover, appellants' specification provides evidence that
changing the relative thickness of the recording layer is not
simply a matter of design choice by stating that JP '827 "relates
to a different problem: the thickness reduction in the radial
direction allows for recording at a constant power when the
medium rotates at a constant angular velocity" (page 8 of
specification, lines 11-13). The examiner has pointed to no
suggestion in JP '827 that the recording layer may have a
gradually increasing thickness from the inner to the outer
radius, nor has the examiner established that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have reasonably expected that modifying
the recording layer of JP '827 in the manner claimed would have
resulted in the effect demonstrated in the present specification.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007