Ex Parte Katayama

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 6, 2010

11045343 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 6, 2010)

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.
11/045,343 01/31/2005 Ryuichi Katayama 016778-0489 3143
22428 7590 07/06/2010
FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
SUITE 500
3000 K STREET NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
EXAMINER
GUPTA, PARUL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte RYUICHI KATAYAMA
_____________

Appeal 2009-012208
Application 11/045,343
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN C. MARTIN, and
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, 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 2009-012208
Application 11/045,343

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 and 13, claim 2 having been canceled and claims 3-12
having been withdrawn from consideration. Final Action 1. In a
September 4, 2008, “Amendment and Reply Under 37 CFR 1.116,”2
Appellant canceled claim 13, leaving only claim 1 for our consideration.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

A. Appellant’s invention
Appellant’s invention is an optical head apparatus for detecting data
and for detecting tracking and focusing errors in optical recording systems.
Specification [0002], [0006].3
In addition to detecting the recorded data, the optical head in
accordance with Appellant’s invention uses (1) a differential phase method
to develop a tracking error signal when reading optical media of the read-
only type (e.g., a DVD-ROM); (2) a push-pull method to develop a tracking
error signal when reading rewritable media; and (3) a Foucault method (or
double knife edge method) to develop a focusing error signal (id. at [0002]-
[0007]).
Figure 8 is reproduced below.

2 Approved for entry in a September 26, 2008, Advisory Action, at 1.
3 References herein to Appellant’s Specification are to the Application as
filed rather than to corresponding Patent Application Publication
2005/0135207 A1.
Appeal 2009-012208
Application 11/045,343

3

Figure 8 is a view showing a first embodiment of an optical head
apparatus according to Appellant’s invention (id. at [0096]). Emitted light
from a semiconductor laser 1 is formed into a parallel ray by a collimator
lens 2, is incident on a polarizing beam splitter 3 as p-polarized light and
transmitted therethrough substantially by 100%, is converted from linearly
polarized light to circularly polarized light by a quarter-wave plate 4, and is
focused onto a disk 6 through an object lens 5 (id. at [0115]). Reflected light
from the disk 6 is transmitted through object lens 5 in a reverse direction, is
converted from circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light by
quarter-wave plate 4, is incident on polarizing beam splitter 3 as s-polarized
light and reflected substantially by 100%, is diffracted by a hologram optical
element 7, is transmitted through the lens 8, and is received by an optical
detector 9 (id. at [0116]).
Appeal 2009-012208
Application 11/045,343

4
Figure 9 is reproduced below.

Figure 9 is a plane view of a hologram optical element according to
the first embodiment of the optical head apparatus of the invention (id. at
[0097]). The hologram optical element 7 is divided into four regions 10-13
by two dividing lines respectively in parallel with a radial direction and a
tangential direction of the disk 6 (id. at [0117]).
Figure 10 is reproduced below.

Appeal 2009-012208
Application 11/045,343

5
Figure 10 is a sectional view of the hologram optical element 7
depicted in Figure 9 (id. at [0098]), which is constituted so that a dielectric
film 15 is formed on a glass substrate 14 (id. at [0118]). The reflected light
from disk 6 that is incident on hologram optical element 7 as incident light
16 is diffracted as -1st-order diffracted light 17 and +1st-order diffracted
light 18, both of which are received by the optical detector 9 (id.).
As a result of the step-like sectional shape of the dielectric film 15, the
diffraction efficiency η-1 of the -1st-order diffracted light and the diffraction
efficiency η+1 of the +1st-order diffracted light are given by different
Equations (1) and (2), respectively, in paragraph 0119 of the Specification.
As an example, η-1 and η+1 can have values of 0.10 and 0.71, respectively
(id. at [0120]).
Figure 11 is reproduced below.

Figure 11 is a view showing a pattern of an optical detector (9) and
light spots on the optical detector depicted in Figures 8-10 (id. at [0099]).
Numerals 19-26 designate separate light-receiving portions of detector 9 (id.
at [0123]). The outputs of these light-receiving portions are designated in
Appeal 2009-012208
Application 11/045,343

6
paragraph 0127 as V19-V26, respectively. The -1st-order diffracted light
from regions 10-14 of holographic element 7 forms light spots 27-30,
respectively, while the +1st-order diffracted light from regions 10-14 forms
light spots 31-34, respectively (id. at [0123]-[0126]). Appellant (Br. 6) reads
the recited “second group of light” of claim 1 on the -1st-order diffracted
light (i.e., light spots 27-30) and reads the recited “first group of light
[having an optical strength that] is larger than an optical signal strength of
the second group of light” on the +1st-order diffracted light (i.e., light spots
31-34).
A focusing error signal in accordance with a Foucault method is
obtained by calculation of (V19+V22)-(V20+V21) (Specification [0127]),
all of which correspond to -1st-order diffracted light (i.e., the recited
“second group of light”).
The tracking error and data signals are derived from V23-V26, which
correspond to the +1st-order diffracted light (i.e., the recited “first group of
light”). Specifically, a tracking error signal using the differential phase
method is obtained from the phase difference between V23+V26 and
V24+V25 (id.); a tracking error signal using the push-pull method is
obtained by calculation of (V23+V25)-(V24+V26) (id. at [0128]); and the
data signal recorded on the disk 6 is obtained by calculation of
V23+V24+V25+V26 (id.).

B. Claim 1
Claim 1 reads as follows, with the limitation at issue being italicized:
Appeal 2009-012208
Application 11/045,343

7
1. An optical system comprising:
a light source;
an object lens for focusing emitted light from the light
source onto an optical recording medium;
first optical separating means which is provided between
the light source and the object lens and which separates an
optical path of reflected light from the optical recording
medium, from an optical path of the emitted light from the light
source;
second optical separating means which separates the
reflected light from the optical recording medium via the first
optical separating means into a first group of light and a
second group of light;
an optical detector for receiving the first group of light
and the second group of light; and
a quarter-wave plate which is provided between the first
optical separating means and the object lens;
wherein the quarter-wave plate makes a polarization
direction of the emitted light form [sic] the light source and a
polarization direction of the reflected light from the optical
recording medium orthogonal to each other;
wherein the first optical separating means is a polarizing
beam splitter which leads the emitted light from the light source
to the optical recording medium substantially completely and
leads the reflected light from the optical recording medium to
the second optical separating means substantially completely;
and
an optical signal strength of the first group of light is
larger than an optical signal strength of the second group of
light,
wherein the optical system is constituted such that a
tracking error signal by a differential phase method, a tracking
Appeal 2009-012208
Application 11/045,343

8
error signal by a push-pull method and a data signal recorded
on the optical recording medium are detected from the first
group of light while a focusing error signal is detected from the
second group of light.
Claims App. (Br. 14) (emphasis added).

C. The rejection4
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by
the following reference (Answer 3):
Ohnishi et al. (“Ohnishi”) US 6,125,087 Sep. 26,
2000

THE ISSUE
Appellant argues that the light rays on which the Examiner reads the
recited “first group of light” are not “separate” from the light rays on which
the Examiner reads the recited “second group of light,” as required by the
claim.

4 A rejection of claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103(a)
based on Katayama U.S. Patent 5,696,750 (Final Action 3) has been
withdrawn (Answer 2, para. 6.)

Appeal 2009-012208
Application 11/045,343

9
ANALYSIS
Ohnishi discloses optical pickups that are each capable of generating
both of the types of tracking signals required for reading read-only discs and
rewritable discs. Ohnishi, col. 1, l. 65 to col. 2, l. 6.
The Examiner relies on Ohnishi’s third embodiment, depicted in
Figure 8, which is reproduced below.

Figure 8 is a block diagram of a signal generating portion suitable for
the third embodiment of Ohnishi’s optical pickup (col. 3, ll. 53-55).
Appeal 2009-012208
Application 11/045,343

10
Photodetector 305 has six separate detection areas a-f (col. 10, ll. 25-
26), whose output signals are combined in various ways in circuits 500 to
510 to generate a focus error signal, the two claimed types of tracking error
signals, and a recording information signal (col. 10, l. 44 to col. 11, l. 32).
Photo-detector 305 receives four light spots 403a-403d generated by
respective regions (unnumbered) of holographic light element 304 (col. 10,
ll. 16-36).
Figure 7 is reproduced below.

Figure 7 is a sectional view showing an essential portion of the third
embodiment of Ohnishi’s optical pickup (col. 9, ll. 36-38). The holographic
element 304, in response to the light beam reflected from the optical disc,
generates separate -1st-order and +1st-order diffracted light beams 402 that
are converged into light spot 403 on a detection area of a photo-detector 305
Appeal 2009-012208
Application 11/045,343

11
(col. 9, ll. 56-63). Thus, each of the four light spots 403a-403d on photo-
detector 305 in Figure 8 represents converged ±1st-order diffraction beams
402a-402d, respectively. In contrast, the optical pickup depicted in
Appellant’s Figures 8-10 does not converge the ±1st-order diffraction
beams. Instead, each of the eight light spots 27-34 shown on the detector in
Appellant’s Figure 11 corresponds to either a -1st-order diffraction beam or
a +1st-order diffraction beam.
Comparing claim 1 to Ohnishi, the Examiner reads the recited “first
group of light” on light beams 402a-402d, reads the recited “second group of
light” on light beams 402b and 402c, and finds that the strength of the first
group of beam is inherently greater than the strength of the second group of
beams (Answer 4-5). We agree with Appellant that this position is unsound
because light beams 402b and 402c, which are asserted by the Examiner to
correspond to the recited “second group of light,” are not separate from light
beams 402a-402d, which are asserted to correspond to the recited “first
group of light,” as required by claim 1 (Reply Br. 3). Instead, the asserted
“second group of light” is a part of the asserted “first group of light” (id.).
The rejection therefore will not be sustained.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for
anticipation by Ohnishi is reversed.

REVERSED
Appeal 2009-012208
Application 11/045,343

12

babc

FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
SUITE 500
3000 K STREET NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20007