Ex Parte Holmberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2016

13667421 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/667,421 11/02/2012 Mike Alan Holmberg 83097978 4098
56436 7590 12/15/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
ALUNKAL, THOMAS D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKE ALAN HOLMBERG, JOHN D. HAMPTON,
TURGUY GOKER, BOB BRUMMET and JAEWOOK LEE
Appeal 2016-001559
Application 13/667,421
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JASON V. MORGAN and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-001559
Application 13/667,421
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—9, 11, 12, 14, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method comprising:
in a data storage device, sensing a plurality of data streams from
a track of tape storage media as the media moves in a given direction
using a plurality of read elements; and
combining the data streams to generate a constructed data
stream indicating data read from the track, wherein combining the
data streams comprises selecting portions from the data streams
containing valid data and being associated with different time
segments of the constructed data stream and combining the selected
portions to generate the constructed data stream, wherein combining
the data streams comprises:
applying error correction code (ECC)-based detection to
the sensed data streams; and
selectively combining the sensed data streams based on a
result of the ECC-based detection.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ozue (US
2
Appeal 2016-001559
Application 13/667,421
2003/0090837 Al; May 15, 2003) and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
(AAPA).1
Appellants ’ Contentions1 2
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Even assuming, for purposes of argument, that one of
skill in the art would have applied ECC-based detection to
Ozue’s system, no plausible reason has been advanced to
explain why such detection would have been used [as] a basis
for selectively combining Ozue’s reproduced signals, as
claimed. In this manner, in Ozue, the absence of a signal
indicates that the reproducing head is off the track, and no
reason has been advanced to explain why the skilled artisan
would have [used] ECC detection [of] on track signals to guide
the selective combination of these signals (emphasis added by
underlining).
App. Br. 12, emphases added.
2. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[C]laim 1 does not merely state combining sensed data streams
to which ECC-based detection has been applied, but rather,
claim 1 expressly recites selectively combining based on a
result of the ECC-based detection. The mere application of
ECC-detection to Ozue’s data streams fails to disclose or render
obvious the expressly-recited elements.
Reply Br. 2, emphasis added.
1 As to this rejection, our decision as to the rejection of claim 1 is
determinative. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of
claims 2, 4, 5, 7—9, 11, 12, 14, and 15, is not discussed further herein.
2 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellants’ other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal 2016-001559
Application 13/667,421
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants’ above contentions 1 and 2 (covering claim 1),
Appellants argue at contention 1, the Examiner erred because “no plausible
reason has been advanced to explain why such detection would have been
used [as] a basis for selectively combining Ozue’s reproduced signals.”
App. Br. 12, emphases added. We agree because we conclude the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 (Final Act. 3—4) is silent as to the
“selectively” requirement of the combining the sensed data streams of claim
1. In response to Appellants’ “selectively combining” argument the
Examiner states:
[Providing the ECG-based detection and correction, as
suggested by AAPA, to the plural data streams of Ozue results
in a more accurate combined reproduced signal. The combined
reproduced signal is the selective combination of data streams
from Rh2 and Rh3 (chosen from data streams Rhl-Rh4) that
read data across of given track.
Ans. 3, emphasis added. Appellants then argue at contention 2, the
Examiner erred because “claim 1 expressly recites selectively combining
based on a result of the ECC-based detection” and “[t]he mere application of
ECC-detection to Ozue’s data streams fails to disclose or render obvious the
expressly-recited elements.” Reply Br. 2, emphasis added. Again we agree.
We conclude, consistent with Appellants’ argument, there is
insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s findings.
4
Appeal 2016-001559
Application 13/667,421
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to
support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’
invention.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—9, 11, 12, 14, and 15
is reversed.
REVERSED
5