Appeal 2007-0409
Application 10/479,203
41.37(c)(1)(vii). In any event, we note that the Examiner has addressed, and
persuasively demonstrated, that each of the appealed claims is prima facie
anticipated and/or obvious for the reasons stated in the Answer. For the
reasons discussed below, we find that Appellants have failed to overcome
the Examiner’s prima facie showing of anticipation as to claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11,
12, and 14-16, and prima facie showing of obviousness as to appealed
claims 2, 6-8, 13, and 17-20.
Rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The Examiner found that Uchiumi discloses the invention as claimed
in each of claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, and 14-16. Appellants argue that the
Examiner’s findings are not sufficient to establish that Uchiumi teaches
each of the recited claim limitations. (See Reply Br. 4-5). We address
Appellants’ arguments as to each of the claim limitations in turn.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided evidence that a
Te-Sn recording layer is rewritable. The Examiner found that Uchiumi’s
Te-Sn recording layer is inherently rewritable based on specific disclosures
in the Specification that the recording layer changes between amorphous
and crystalline phases. The Examiner also relied on Uchiumi’s explicit
statement that the optical recording media of Examples 1-3 is rewritable.
(Answer 7). Based on these findings, we fail to see any merit in
Appellants’ argument. Moreover, we note that the Examiner’s position is
supported by Nonaka’s teaching that Te alloys, including alloys of Ge, Sb,
Te, and Sn may be used as the recording layers in rewritable phase change
type optical recording media. (FF 15).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013