Ex parte CHOI

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2001

08525152 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte NAG-EUI CHOI
____________
Appeal No. 1998-3409
Application No. 08/525,152
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-7, which
are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 1998-3409
Application No. 08/525,152
2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an automatic head switching control method and
apparatus for use in a VCR. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. An automatic head switching control apparatus for use in a VCR
having a drum driven by a drum motor, said drum having a plurality of heads,
the apparatus comprising:
a head switching signal generator for generating a head switching
signal according to drum phase generation (DPG) and drum frequency
generation (DFG) signals supplied from the drum, delay data, and a shift
command signal of a head switching point of time for each head;
a format detector coupled to an output end of the head switching
signal generator, for comparing the head switching signal with a vertical sync
signal of a video signal and detecting whether an interval of time between
both the head switching signal and the vertical sync signal meets a
predetermined range;
a controller for supplying the delay data and the shift command signal
of the head switching point of time for each head to the head switching
signal generator according to the output of the format detector;
a storage portion for storing the delay data generated when the
format detector judges that the format is met; and
a drum phase detector for detecting a drum phase according to a
drum reference signal output from a drum reference counter and the head
switching signal output from the head switching signal generator, and
supplying a drum phase control signal to the drum.
Appeal No. 1998-3409
Application No. 08/525,152
3
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Mitsuhashi 5,243,474 Sep. 07, 1993
Park et al. (Park) 5,448,367 Sep. 05, 1995

Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park
in view of Mitsuhashi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 17, mailed Apr. 29, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 16, filed Feb., 17, 1997) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that the reference to Park does not teach the use of both a shift
command signal and delay data. (See brief at page 11.) Appellant further argues
Appeal No. 1998-3409
Application No. 08/525,152
4
that Park teaches that delay data is maintained internally within the microcomputer 10b
and that the delay data is neither output to the integrator circuit 10c nor to the mono-multi
circuit 14. We agree with appellant that Park does not teach or suggest “a controller for
supplying the delay data and the shift command signal of the head switching point of time
for each head to the head switching signal generator according to the output of the format
detector” as recited in claim 1. The basic problem is that the examiner is relying on
essentially the same structure to provide both claim limitations, yet the examiner does not
clearly explain how the reference meets the limitations as recited in claim 1. For example,
the examiner maintains that the “delay data and shift command signal (output 10c and 14)”
are output from “format detector 10(b)”. Later the examiner maintains that “controller for
supplying the delay data and shift command signal (10, 10c)” is taught by Park. (See
answer at page 3.) Here, the examiner relies upon different teachings within the reference
for the same information where one is the overall automatic mono-multi signal control
circuit 10, and the other is a sub-unit 10c within the automatic mono-multi signal control
circuit 10. The examiner then maintains that the “signal outputted from 14 is being
interpreted as the delay data and shift command signal. In col. 6 lines 47-53, Park
describes how the output from 14 causes the head switching signal to rise from a low state
to a high state.
Appeal No. 1998-3409
Application No. 08/525,152
5
This is being interpreted as shifting.” Id. We disagree with the examiner.
The examiner does not rely upon the teachings of Mitsuhashi to teach the above
claim limitation. Therefore, Mitsuhashi does not remedy the deficiency in Park. Since the
combination of Park and Mitsuhashi does not teach or suggest the invention as recited in
claim 1, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-4.
With respect to independent method claim 5, appellant argues that Park does not
teach or suggest controlling the velocity of the drum motor according to the switching
signal. (See brief at page 12.) We agree with appellant. The examiner maintains that
Park teaches the use of the head switching signal H S/W which is used to control the
velocity. But, the language of claim 5 recites “controlling a head switching operation by
varying the velocity of a drum motor according to the head switching signal.” While Park
states that the head switching signal is used to control the speed (see col. 4, line 61 - col.
5, line 3), we do not find that the head switching signal is input directly to the servo
controller 15 to control velocity/speed. From our review of Park, Park teaches that the
head switching signal is an output of the servo unit 15 which is input to the mono-multi
signal generating circuit 14. Park is silent as to the use of the speed to control the head
switching operation according to the head switching signal.
Appeal No. 1998-3409
Application No. 08/525,152
6
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 5 and its dependent claims 6 and 7.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jld/vsh
Appeal No. 1998-3409
Application No. 08/525,152
7
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK AND SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N W
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3202