Appeal 2007-3546
Application 10/418,180
Dai US 6,638,622 B2 Oct. 28, 2003
Tanahashi US 6,723,457 B2 Apr. 20, 2004
Sakawaki US 6,818,331 B2 Nov. 16, 2004
Ozaki, TbFeCo as a Perpendicular Magnetic Recording Material, Journal of
the Magnetics Society of Japan, 25, 322-327 (2001).
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ozaki in view of Sekiya. Claims 5, 6, 12, and 13
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ozaki in
view of Sekiya and Tanahashi. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ozaki in view of Sekiya and Sakawaki.
We affirm all of the stated rejections for substantially the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer and as further explained below.1
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
1 We limit our consideration of the Examiner’s rejections to the reference
evidence listed in the Examiner’s rejection statements and the explanation
thereof provided in the Final Office Action and the Answer. Moreover, we
note that Appellants do not list any additional evidence as being relied upon
in rebuttal in the Evidence Appendix to the Brief. Thus, we consider
Appellants’ arguments as presented in the Briefs on the basis of the
representative claims and the reference evidence applied in the rejections.
Appellants’ Specification is taken into account to the extent of any
admissions therein and, as necessary, to understand the claimed subject
matter in reaching this Decision. Moreover, the Specification is considered
to the extent specifically referred to in any arguments presented in the
Briefs. Other evidence brought into the discussion in the appeal papers
submitted by the Examiner and Appellants is not properly before us for
review.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013