Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2013

11379221 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte CHIEN-KUO CHEN, TSUNG-KAI CHANG,
CHIN-SUNG LIU, and LI-CHUNG PENG
_____________

Appeal 2010-012150
Application 11/379,221
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-012150
Application 11/379,221

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a flat cable device for an optical pickup
head where one end of the flat cable is connected to the optical pickup unit,
and the other is connected to a circuit board. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A flat cable device for optical pickup heads, comprising:
a traverse mechanism, having a disc loader for holding a
disc and an optical pickup unit for reading data from and
writing data to said disc, said optical pickup unit being movably
disposed between said disc loader and an outer comer of said
traverse mechanism;
a signal connection end formed on said optical pickup
unit and
a flat cable connected to said signal connection end;
wherein said flat cable extends from said signal
connection end above said optical pickup unit towards said disc
loader and then bends to go underneath said optical pickup unit
towards said outer comer.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Asaba (JP 2000-090596 A, Mar. 31, 2000). Ans. 3-5.1

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.”) dated
March 18, 2010, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated May 28, 2010.
Appeal 2010-012150
Application 11/379,221

3

Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Asaba does not support a finding of
anticipation because the cited portions of the reference do not disclose all the
elements of independent claim 1 (Br. 3-5).2
Appellants specifically assert that Asaba does not teach or suggest “a
signal connection end formed on said optical pickup unit,” and “wherein
said flat cable extends from said signal connection end above said optical
pickup unit towards said disc loader and then bends to go underneath said
optical pickup unit towards said outer comer,” as recited in claim 1. Id.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims as anticipated by Asaba
because the reference fails to disclose all the recited features of claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-6).
The Examiner provides a well-reasoned explanation, including
citations to several paragraphs and drawings of Asaba, which demonstrate

2 Appellants do not separately argue claims 2 and 4. Br. 5-6.
Appeal 2010-012150
Application 11/379,221

4

how Asaba teaches the features of claim 1 (id.). We concur with the
Examiner’s fact findings as supported by Asaba’s disclosure. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Figure 4(a) of Asaba is reproduced below:

Figure 4(a) illustrates a side view of the flexible wiring board
(labels added for emphasis).

As depicted above, the Examiner finds that Asaba discloses a flat
cable device for optical pickup heads that includes a traverse mechanism (1)
with an optical pickup unit (2), and a signal connection end formed on the
optical pickup unit (2). Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds that the flat cable
(3) extends from the signal connection end above the optical pickup unit (2)
towards the disc loader (1) and then bends to go underneath the optical
pickup unit (2) towards an outer corner (Id. (citing to Asaba ¶ 0011 and
¶¶ 0014-0015)). The Examiner further finds that the flat cable (3) is bent
above pickup (2) when it is connected to connected arms (42, 43) and then
bends to go under pickup (2) and towards the outer corner when the flat
cable (3) is connected to a connector (51). Ans. 4, 6.
Applicants did not file a Reply Brief challenging the Examiner’s
findings. We therefore have no reason to disagree with the findings. We are
Appeal 2010-012150
Application 11/379,221

5

therefore satisfied that the cited disclosure of Asaba describes the disputed
limitations.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that because Asaba teaches all
the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting the claims as
being anticipated by Asaba. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and 4 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc