Appeal No. 2004-0779
Application No. 09/790,185 Page 12
We turn next to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oshima ('299) in view of
Oshima ('551). We reverse the rejection of claim 5 as Oshima
('551) fails to make up for the basic deficiencies of Oshima
('299).
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 41.50(b).
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite. Claims 1 and 7 recite that an
erasable identification mark is present in an identification mark
area other than the data recording area. The claim goes on the
recite that the erasable identification mark extends over a
radial width of several tracks of the tracking structure in the
data recording area. It is unclear as to how the mark can be in
an area other than the data recording area and can extend in the
data recording area. Accordingly, we find claims 1-5 and 7 to be
indefinite within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Note that claims 2-5 are indefinite based on their
dependency from claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007