Appeal 2007-0409
Application 10/479,203
Appellants argue that Uchiumi does not disclose or suggest high data
rate recording. The Examiner found that Uchiumi’s data storage medium
would inherently record data at a high rate because of rapid heat dissipation
through the ITO layer to the 200 nm metal layer. (Answer 11). This finding
is supported by Nonaka’s teaching that it is known that Te alloys have a high
crystallization rate and allow high speed overwriting. (FF 15). Thus, in our
view, the Examiner properly shifted the burden to Appellants to present
evidence showing that Uchiumi’s data storage medium cannot be used for
high data storage. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(“[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing
that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant
has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Appellants have not met this
burden.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that Examiner has established a
prima facie case of anticipation as to claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, and 14-16,
which Appellants have failed to overcome. The rejection is affirmed.
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
The Examiner found 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 with a reasonable expectation of reducing
degradation of the optical properties of the recording medium as taught by
Nonaka. (Answer 5-6). According to Appellants, one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining
Uchiumi with Nonaka because Nonaka is intended to function as a
rewritable media. (Reply Br. 5-6). We do not find Appellants’ arguments
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013