Appeal No. 2003-1861
Application No. 09/551,537
In the reply brief, appellants set forth similar arguments
as set forth in their brief. Appellants additionally
specifically argue the rejection of claims 2 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Hurditch in view of
Cunningham. Appellants argue that the examiner continues to
misread and misinterpret Hurditch for the reasons discussed
above. We disagree for the same reasons as stated above.
Appellants argue that the rotating speeds are recited in
claim 2. Appellants argue that Cunningham does not make up for
the deficiencies of Hurditch in connection with the amount of
organic solvent in the organic dye layer and the absence of a
drying treatment.
The examiner relies upon Cunningham for appellants’
particularly claimed solvent of 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-propanol.
The examiner further states, and the appellants do not dispute
in the brief, that the claimed rotating speed of 3500 rpm is a
choice based upon determining, through routine experimentation,
a workable or even optimum range of rotating speeds, a result-
effective variable. Absent any evidence of any critically of
the particularly claimed rotating speed of 3500 rpm, we agree
with the examiner that the subject matte would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In view of the above, we affirm each of the rejections.
II. Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hurditch is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hurditch in view of Cunningham is
affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007