Appeal No. 2004-0779
Application No. 09/790,185 Page 6
the ultimate language of claim 1. It is argued, (id.) that the
identification marks are non-reversibly recorded, and therefore,
are not erasable. Appellants further assert (brief, page 17)
that Oshima does not teach a rewritable recording layer, but
rather discloses a method of storing "write-once" information.
It is noted by appellants that the phrase "write once" appears
approximately 132 times in the disclosure of Oshima. Appellants
further assert (brief, page 18) that Oshima does not teach
"wherein the identification mark area is substantially free from
a tracking structure."
The examiner's position (answer, page 3) is that:
As far as the examiner can determine, the Oshima et
al system is a re-write able medium having an erasable
identification mark-see the discussion with respect to
the oblong stripes/marks-as discussed on col. 2 line 42
to col. 12 line 33. As further noted in figs. 7-11,
these marks satisfy the ultimate language of claim 1.
Before we begin our analysis of the examiner's rejection, we
note that for the reasons, to be set forth, infra, we find
independent claims 1 and 7 to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. In addressing the rejection of the
claims over the prior art, we construe the claims to mean that
the identification mark is largely located in the identification
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007