Appeal No. 2004-2148
Application No. 09/362,397
forming an optical layer disclosed by Kluger would have been suitable for
forming a layer in the information carrier of Challener.
Appellant argues that Kugler does teach doping of the silicon target
(Claim 100) as well as sputtering but not ion plating. Appellant argues that
because of the critical nature of the intermediate layer between
information layers, it is not seen how the skilled artisan would reach these
claims in an obvious manner from the combination of Challener, Kim and
Kluger. (Brief, p. 34).
We do not agree. Appellant admits that the Kluger reference
teaches doping of the silicon target and sputtering processes. (Brief, p. 34).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the claimed subject
matter discloses ion plating is an alternative to sputtering and magnetron
sputtering.
The Examiner rejected claims 96 and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Challener, Kim, Kluger and
Signer. We affirm.
Claims 96 and 97 further limit Claim 95 by calling for the pulsing or
intermittent interrupting of power. This process is taught by Signer.
Appellant argues that Signer seems to have wide application in general
but only mentions its usefulness for making optical layers and does not
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007