Appeal No. 2003-1892
Application No. 09/681,288
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the over the combination of
Rollhaus, Lawandy and either one of Nishida, Shinkai or Takagishi, combined with
Enmanji and Barzynski further combined with Izu and Hu. (Answer pp. 3-10).
DISCUSSION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellants and
the Examiner, we find ourselves in agreement with Appellants’ position in that the
Examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. We
will limit our discussion to independent claims 1, 19 and 20.
According to the Examiner, Rollhaus discloses the use of read inhibiting
means, such as leuco dyes, which become colored upon exposure to oxygen. The
read inhibiting means can be placed in the laser reading path of polycarbonate
substrates. Rollhaus discloses the read inhibiting means can be coated with
protective layers and semi-permeable oxygen barrier layers. Rollhaus fails to
disclose the composition of the protective layer and semi-permeable oxygen barrier
layer. (Answer, p. 3).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007