Appeal 2007-0409
Application 10/479,203
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
negative.
II. The Examiner contends that Uchiumi discloses the invention as
claimed in each of claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, and 14-16. Appellants contend
that the Examiner’s findings are not sufficient to establish a prima facie
case of anticipation. The issue before us is: Has the Examiner properly
established that each of the recited claim elements is either expressly or
inherently taught by Uchiumi?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
affirmative.
III. The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to add the boundary layers of Nonaka to the
recording medium of Uchiumi. Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have combined Uchiumi and Nonaka because Nonaka is
intended to function as rewritable media while Uchiumi’s recording layer is
allegedly not rewritable. The issue for us to decide is: Has the Examiner
made sufficient factual findings to establish reasonable expectation of
success in combining Uchiumi with Nonaka?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
affirmative.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013