Appeal No. 2006-1869
Application No. 10/396,814
We have carefully reviewed the evidentiary record in
light of the positions taken by the examiner and the
appellants on appeal. Having done so, we find that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to all of the claims before us. Accordingly,
we shall affirm all of the rejections at issue essentially
for the reasons given in the examiner’s answer.
Since the appellants do not question the examiner’s
rationale for combining each of Onodera and Ochi with
Matsumura, we shall focus our discussion upon the rejection
of claims 1, 3-5, and 7, which is based upon Matsumura
alone.
The MRM of Matsumura, like that described in
appellants’ claims, includes a magnetic layer 2, a non-
magnetic support 1 and, optionally, a backcoat layer 4.
The MRM of Matsumura may also include a
perfluoropolyether lubricant layer on the surface of the
magnetic layer (Matsumura: col. 11, l. 52-54). According
to the examiner, the claim limitation directed to “a
protective layer comprising a hard film containing carbon
as a principal component” reads on the carbon-containing
perfluoropolyether layer of Matsumura. This particular
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007