Appeal 2007-3146
Application 10/002,952
Appellants disclose a optical data recording medium includes a
transparent substrate made of polycarbonate that is 0.5 mm thick, a thin film
layer made of aluminium nitride that is 65 nm thick, and a protective film
made of UV curing resin 1 which is 16 microns thick (Specification 18;
Figure 11). Appellants disclose that the warp angle variation should be
within the range of 0-5 mrad (Specification 21: 9-10).
From these disclosures, there is a reasonable basis in fact for believing
that Tajima’s thin film protective layer inherently possesses the claimed
expansion coefficient under humidity. Tajima and Appellants disclose using
the same substrate material (i.e., polycarbonate) and the same thin film
material (i.e., aluminium nitride). Furthermore, the “very small” change in
warpage angle (e.g., -2 to .5 mrads) overlaps Appellants range of 0-5 mrads.
The overlapping values of the warpage angle property for Tajima’s optical
data recording medium and Appellants’ optical information recording
medium provide a reasonable basis in fact to believe that the UV cured resin
used by Tajima must have expansion protection properties corresponding to
the protective film resin used by Appellants.
Accordingly, because the optical information recording medium of
Tajima appears to be identical to the optical data recording medium claimed
by Appellants, the burden shifted to Appellants to prove that Tajima’s
optical information recording medium does not inherently possess the
characteristics of the claimed product. Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at
433-34. Despite having two inventors in common with the Tajima
reference, Appellants failed to provide any evidence comparing the
properties of Tajima’s protective film of the optical information recording
medium with Appellants’ protective film of the optical data recording
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013