Appeal 2007-0409
Application 10/479,203
Appellants argue that Uchiumi fails to disclose a dielectric layer. The
Examiner found that the recitation of a “dielectric layer” is met by
Uchiumi’s electrode film 2. (Answer 8, ¶ 2). In our view, the Examiner’s
finding is reasonable, particularly given Appellants’ disclosure that SiO2,
Ta2O5, SiO2, and ZnS may be used for the claimed dielectric layer (see
Specification 4:18-29). The Examiner’s finding also appears to be
supported by Uchiumi’s teaching that electrode film 2 serves as a protective
film (FF 4) and Nonaka’s teaching that dielectric layers act to prevent the
recording layer from being deformed or opened during recording (FF 14),
thereby acting as protective layers. Appellants have not presented evidence
to refute the Examiner’s finding, such as evidence which shows that
Uchiumi’s layer of SnO2 and ITO does not act as a dielectric layer.
Appellants argue that Uchiumi does not disclose a further transparent
layer having a thickness in the range of 50 to 250 nm. As pointed out by the
Examiner, the claims, as drafted, do not require three separate layers, i.e.,
two transparent layers and a dielectric layer. Appellants have failed to refute
the Examiner’s finding that Uchiumi teaches a recording media having a
first layer which meets the limitation of Appellants’ claimed first transparent
layer and a second layer which meets the claim limitation of a dielectric
layer (claims 5 and 16) or a second transparent layer (claims 4, 9, and 15).
(Answer 8).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013