Ex parte Hanson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 1998

08346689 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 1998)

Application for patent filed November 30, 1994. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte BRADLEY E. HANSON
____________
Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,6891
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 24.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for selecting a data recovery routine from among a plurality
of data recovery routines based upon a type of data.
Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
2
Claim 18 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
18. An adaptive data recovery apparatus for a data
storage disk, the data recovery apparatus comprising:
memory means for storing a plurality of data recovery
routines;
selection means for selecting any of the plurality of
data recovery routines in accordance with a type of data; and
control means, coupled to the selection and memory means,
for performing the selected data recovery routines to correct
an error when reading data from the data storage disk.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Moriyama et al. (Moriyama) 4,654,853 Mar. 31,
1987
Cunningham et al. (Cunningham) 5,379,162 Jan. 3,
1995
(filed Aug. 19,
1993)
Claims 1 through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Cunningham in view of Moriyama.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1,
Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
3
3 through 14 and 16 through 24, and reverse the 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claims 2 and 15.
Cunningham discloses a method and apparatus for data
recovery in a disk drive data storage system. A plurality of
data recovery procedures are stored in memory, and when a
readback error is detected in a read-back data signal, one of
the stored plurality of data recovery procedures is selected
in response to the detected readback error and head and disk
parameters. “A preferred data recovery procedure is defined
specific to the failure mechanisms or risk factors at any
given point or head/disk as illustrated and described with
respect to FIGS. 3, 4 and 5" (column 4, lines 2 through 5).
Although “many recovery procedures have been developed to
correct for specific failure mechanisms,” “[a] typical data
recovery procedure includes rereads, head shifts and at least
one error correcting code (ECC)” (column 1, lines 51 through
53 and column 8, lines 7 through 11). The examiner recognizes
that “Cunningham does not explicitly teach selecting the
recovery procedure based on the type of data” (Answer, page
3).
Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
4
Moriyama teaches that different error recovery procedures
should be used for different types of data. When the data is
computer programs, an error correcting coding method is chosen
so that error correction is acceptably high, and when the data
is audio signals, a nonoptimum coding method is chosen for
error correction (column 1, lines 39 through 53). At the
transmission side of Moriyama’s data transmission system, “an
optimum coding method on which a data group including
information data and a check word is based is selected in
accordance with the contents or type of the information
carried thereby, and a control code representing the thus-
selected coding method is inserted into a data signal” (column
1, line 64 through column 2, line 2). At the reception side
of Moriyama’s data transmission system,
the control code inserted in the data signal is
extracted so as to determine the coding method on
which the data group is based, and the data group is
subjected to error detection/correction processing
on the basis of the determined coding method to
thereby recover the original information from the
data group after error correction (column 2, lines 2
through 8).
A Reed-Solomon error correction circuit 75 is included in the
error detection/correction circuit 52 (Figure 7, column 4,
Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
5
lines 43 through 51).
The examiner is of the opinion (Answer, pages 3 and 4)
that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine the teachings of
Moriyama with Cunningham because both inventions are
concerned with customizing data recovery procedures.
Although, Cunningham is generally concerned with
various hardware parameters and not the particular
type of data, both inventions are concerned with
optimizing the data recovery procedures. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of
the fact that different types of data require
different levels of recovery and would have been
motivated to change the recovery according to the
type of data which is being read. Therefore, it
Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of2
a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference. Nor is it that the
claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or
all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to the
artisan. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981).
6
would have been obvious to include a data type
discriminator as taught by Moriyama in a system
such as Cunningham as a further means in which to
optimize the data recovery.
Appellant argues that Moriyama discloses a “single error
correction process (ECC),” and that Cunningham recognizes “the
inherent limitations of using ECC for correcting errors that
occur when reading data from a data storage disk” (Brief,
page 6). Appellant’s arguments are correct, but the rejection
is not based upon the substitution of the ECC circuit as
taught by Moriyama into the error correction process of
Cunningham. 2
As indicated supra, the examiner is only relying on the
Moriyama teaching that different types of data require
different error recovery procedures. If a reasonable
suggestion has been made that different error recovery
procedures be used for different types of data, then
Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
7
appellant’s assumption (Brief, pages 6 through 9) that
Cunningham would turn to a least favored data recovery
procedure (i.e., ECC) when there are better data recovery
procedures among the stored plurality of data recovery
procedures is without merit. Thus, we agree with the examiner
that the skilled artisan would have known from the combined
teachings of Cunningham and Moriyama that “different types of
data require different levels of recovery,” and that the data
recovery level should be selected “according to the type of
data which is being read” (Answer, pages 3 and 4).
Based upon the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 is sustained. The obviousness rejection of claims 6,
11 and 12 is likewise sustained because of appellant’s
grouping of the claims (Brief, page 5). The obviousness
rejection of claims 3 through 5, 8 through 10, 14, 16, 17, 18,
20, 22 and 23, is sustained because the applied references
would have suggested to the skilled artisan to select a data
recovery procedure from a plurality of data recovery
procedures based upon the type of data on the disk. The
obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 19 is sustained because
Moriyama discloses (Figure 6) reception of a selection code,
Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
8
and because we agree with the examiner (Answer, page 5) that
“it would have been obvious to store the selection code with
the host as an alternative location for storing this
information.” The obviousness rejection of claims 13, 21 and
24 is sustained because each of the disks in Cunningham is a
“detachable memory module,” and is a “reprogrammable memory.”
The obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 15 is reversed
because Cunningham and Moriyama neither teach nor would they
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a selection
switch coupled to the controller for selecting a data recovery
procedure.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims 1, 3 through
14 and 16 through 24, and is reversed as to claims 2 and 15.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
10
MERCHANT, GOULD, SMITH, EDELL,
WELTER and SCHMIDT
3100 Norwest Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4131
Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
11
KWH/jrg
APPEAL NO. 97-0610 - JUDGE
HAIRSTON
APPLICATION NO. 08/346,689
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ FLEMING
APJ BARRETT
DECISION: AFFIRMED-IN-
PART
Typed By: Jenine Gillis
DRAFT TYPED: 12 Apr 00
FINAL TYPED:
JENINE GILLIS
Appeal No. 97-0610
Serial No. 08/346,689
Judge HAIRSTON
Judge CARMICHAEL

Judge URYNOWICZ
Received: 04 Jun 98
Typed: 04 Jun 98
DECISION: AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Send References: Yes No
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Heard: Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________
Acts 2: ____
Palm: ____
Mailed:
Netscape:_____
Updated Monthly Disk: ____