Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2013

11902310 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HAO-CHENG CHEN and WEN-YI WU
____________________

Appeal 2011-002211
Application 11/902,310
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002211
Application 11/902,310

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-17.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) over claims 1, 6,
11, 12, and 17, which continue to be rejected over prior art.
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows, with
emphases and bracketed lettering added:
1. An [Address In Pre-groove (ADIP)] demodulation
apparatus for providing ADIP information according to a
wobble signal, wherein the ADIP information is phase-
modulated in the wobble signal, the ADIP demodulation
apparatus comprising:
a digitize unit for receiving the wobble signal and
generating a wobble pulse;
a phase locked loop for generating a reference wobble
signal according to the wobble pulse;
[A] an ADIP channel bit determination unit comprising a
comparator for comparing the wobble pulse and the reference
wobble signal and generating a difference signal, wherein the

1 Appellants’ statement in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 2) that claims 2-5, 7-
10, and 13-16 are allowed is incorrect, as these claims were indicated as
containing allowable subject matter and are objected to (Final Rej. p.1, box 7
is checked for the objection, and p.3 where the allowable subject matter is
described). Claims 1, 6, 11, 12, and 17 all stand rejected over prior art (see
Ans. 3-4).
Appeal 2011-002211
Application 11/902,310

3
ADIP channel bit determination unit determines an ADIP
channel bit according to the difference signal; and
a decoder for decoding the ADIP channel bit to generate
the ADIP information.
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 11, 12, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sensyu (US 6,201,778 B1). Ans.
3-4.
Appellants’ Contention2
Appellants contend (App. Br. 3-8) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 6, 11, 12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Sensyu fails to
teach or suggest limitation [A] of claim 1 reciting an ADIP channel bit
determination unit, and similar recitations in remaining independent claims 6
and 11.
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 3-7),
the principal issue presented on appeal is:

2 Appellants present specific arguments as to the merits of Sensyu regarding
the anticipation rejection of claim 1, rely on the arguments presented
regarding claim 1 for the patentability of the remaining claims (see Br. 3-8).
We select independent claim 1 as representative of the group of claims
rejected under § 102(b) consisting of claims 1, 6, 11, 12, and 17, pursuant to
our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In view of the foregoing,
our analysis will only address the substance of representative claim 1.

Appeal 2011-002211
Application 11/902,310

4
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 6, 11, 12, and 17 as being
anticipated because Sensyu fails to disclose the ADIP channel bit
determination unit as recited in limitation [A] of representative claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 3-8) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Ans. 3-4), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 4-
5). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants’ arguments concerning Figure 9B and column 8, lines 52-
67 of Sensyu (as being relied upon by the Examiner to teach the ADIP
channel bit determination unit, limitation [A], of claim 1) (App. Br. 4) are
not persuasive inasmuch as the Examiner’s rejection relies on Figures 3, 6A-
F, 8B, 9d, 9f, and 14A-H along with column 2, lines 57-64; column 6, lines
25-33; column 8, lines 10-18; and column 12, lines 22-46 of Sensyu (see
Ans. 3-5).
Appellants have not met their burden of showing reversible error in
the Examiner’s findings regarding the ADIP channel bit determination unit
of Sensyu. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In fact, Appellants have not
filed a Reply Brief or otherwise rebutted the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 4-5 citing columns 2, 6,
and 12 and Figures 6 and 14).
Appeal 2011-002211
Application 11/902,310

5
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 6, 11, 12, and 17 grouped
therewith.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 6, 11, 12, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sensyu.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, 12, and 17 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

llw