Ex Parte Colvig et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 2010

10674298 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ARTHUR J. COLVIG, BRIAN G. GOODMAN,
RONALD F. HILL, JR., and TIMOTHY K. PIERCE
____________

Appeal 2009-003604
Application 10/674,298
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-003604
Application 10/674,298

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Arthur J. Colvig et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-36. Specifically, Appellants seek
review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15,
16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, and 35 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Plutt (US 6,591,164 B1, issued Jul. 8, 2003) in view of
Dimitri (US Pat. Publ. 2002/0062167, publ. May 23, 2002); claims 2, 5, 7,
10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 29, 31, 34, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Plutt in view of Dimitri and further in view of Grobler (US 6,799,084
B2, issued Sep. 28, 2004). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
REVERSE.
The Invention
The claimed invention is to a process to provide redundant accessor
availability in an information storage and retrieval system. Spec. 1:5-6.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method to provide selectable redundant accessor
availability in a data storage and retrieval system, comprising
the steps of:
providing a data storage and retrieval system comprising
one or more data storage devices and an accessor, wherein said
accessor comprises a lifting servo section and a first gripper and
a second gripper disposed on said lifting servo section;
operating said first gripper;
requesting use of said second gripper;
determining if use of said second gripper is authorized;
if use of said second gripper is authorized, operating said
second gripper.

Appeal 2009-003604
Application 10/674,298

3
DISCUSSION
The Examiner states that Plutt, at column 4, lines 9-14, satisfies the
claimed step of requesting use of the second gripper, while within the same
column at lines 40-45, Plutt satisfies the claimed step of determining if use
of the second gripper is authorized. The Examiner states that Plutt, at
column 4, lines 40-67, satisfies the claimed step of requesting use of the
second processor, while in the same column, narrowed to lines 40-45, Plutt
satisfies the claimed step of determining if use of the second processor is
authorized. See Ans. 3-6, 8, 9. The Examiner utilizes Dimitri to teach use
of an accessor with a lifting servo section and grippers on the lifting servo
section for the purpose of moving the gripper vertically. Ans. 12. The
Examiner determines
[i]t would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s
[sic. applicants’] invention to modify Plutt by
utilizing an accessor with a lifting servo section [as
taught by Dimitri], such that the grippers are on the
lifting servo section for the purpose of moving the
gripper vertically to access the cartridges.
Id.
While the Examiner’s rejection explains how the combined teachings
of Plutt and Dimitri provide structure to satisfy the structural components
listed in the claims, the rejection fails to explain how the combination of
these components would render obvious the process steps as called for in the
claims. In particular, the rejection fails, for example, to sufficiently explain
how the disclosure of parking the spare robot at a predetermined location
(see Plutt, col. 4, ll. 40-45) satisfies the claimed process step of determining
if use of the second gripper or accessor is authorized as called for in the
Appeal 2009-003604
Application 10/674,298

4
claims. While the Examiner may be correct that Plutt’s disclosure that “the
use of the second gripper is determined based on necessity” means that the
use of the second gripper is authorized (see Ans. 14), this is not sufficient to
satisfy the claimed step of “determining if use of said second gripper is
authorized.”

CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, as contended by Appellants, the Examiner
improperly rejected the claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the claims is reversed.

REVERSED

mls

DALE F. REGELMAN
QUARLES & BRADY, LLP
ONE SOUTH CHURCH AVENUE, STE. 1700
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1621