Appeal No. 2003-2006
Application No. 09/556,978
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
3, 19, 23 and 24.
According to the examiner (answer, page 5), the admitted
prior art discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and
19 except for “ID information in a predetermined area indicating
the type of disk that it is,” and “Tognazzini discloses a type of
hybrid disc wherein there is an area where information indicating
the type of disc to [be] played is contained in a special area;
col. 6, lines 33-38.” Based upon the teachings of Tognazzini,
the examiner concludes (answer, page 5) that:
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time this invention was made to
have provided the hybrid disc of the Admitted prior
art, with an area identifying the type of disc, as
taught by Tognazzini. The rationale is as follows: It
would have been desirable to have informed the disc
player as to which format was located on the disc. As
Tognazzini teaches the desirability of having the ID
information recorded in an area of the disc, one of
ordinary skill would have been motivated by
Tognazzini’s teaching to have provided the Hybrid disc
of the Admitted prior art with ID information thereby
having provided means for facilitating the reproduction
of discs in the player.
The disk disclosed by Tognazzini is a hybrid disk because it
contains the additional read/write area 102, and not because it
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007