Appeal No. 2003-1861
Application No. 09/551,537
dye layer, thereafter forming a reflecting layer on
the organic dye layer without performing a drying
treatment of the organic solvent left in the organic
dye layer and further forming a protective layer on
the reflecting layer.
2. A process for producing an optical recording
medium according to claim 1, wherein the spin coating
is performed at a rotating speed of 3500 rpm or more
in the formation of the organic dye layer.
5. An optical recording medium according to
Claims 3 or 4, wherein said organic solvent is mainly
2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-1-propanol.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hurditch.
Claims 2 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hurditch in view of Cunningham.
On pages 3-4 of the brief, appellants set forth their
grouping of the claims. To the extent that a claim is argued
separately, we will consider such claim in this appeal. See
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8)(2003).
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 as
being unpatentable over Hurditch1
Beginning on page 5 of the brief, appellants argue that
both claims 1 and 3 require that the organic solvent, which is
1 We observe that on page 5 of the brief, appellants indicate that this
rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We believe this is an
inadvertent error because appellants argue this rejection on the issue
of obviousness.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007