Ex Parte Kay et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2017

13375413 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2017)

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.
13/375,413 11/30/2011 Alexander Stephen Kay STL70274 1290
23043 7590
Seagate Technology LLC
1280 Disc Drive
Shakopee, MN 55379
01/26/2017 EXAMINER
WU, JERRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2017 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):
Lynet.M.Pasket@seagate.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER STEPHEN KAY
and STEPHEN ANDREW BAILEY
Appeal 2016-001447
Application 13/375,413
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, AVELYN M. ROSS, and BRIAN D. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Seagate Systems
(UK) Limited (former entity name Xyratex Technology Limited). Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-001447
Application 13/375,413
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the invention as a disk drive test apparatus for
receiving multiple disk drives. Appellants’ Figure 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the apparatus:
Cell Rsar
Figure 1 shows schematically a perspective view of a disk drive test cell.
Spec. 7:1—2.
The drives can be removed by sliding carrier trays in and out of the
test cell as depicted in Appellants’ Figure 4, reproduced below.
2
Appeal 2016-001447
Application 13/375,413
Figure 4 shows schematically a perspective view of part of the disk drive test
cell of Figure 1 with a carrier tray 14 in an open position. Spec. 14:12—13.
When the tray is open (as shown in Figure 4), it can receive a disk drive into
receiving region 24 while the tray maintains contact with slot 12. Id. at 14:—
22.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain key
recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for reducing vibration in a test cell, the test cell
comprising a plurality of slots each having a carrier for receiving
a single disk drive, the method comprising:
moving the carrier out of a slot into an open position so
that the carrier can receive the single disk drive, wherein the
carrier remains in contact with the slot;
inserting the single disk drive into the carrier when the
carrier is still in contact with the slot; and
moving the carrier containing the single disk drive into a
closed position back in the slot.
Appeal Br.2 8 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1—10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Orriss et al., US 2004/0264121 Al,
December 30, 2004 (hereinafter “Orriss”), in view of Starr et al., US
2007/0230109 Al, October 4, 2007 (hereinafter “Starr”).
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed February 23,
2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed April 22, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 10, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed November 10, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
3
Appeal 2016-001447
Application 13/375,413
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After considering
the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’ contentions,
we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we
affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final
Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants do not separately argue claims 2—10. We therefore limit
our discussion to claim 1. Claims 2—10 stand or fall with that claim. 37
C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
The Examiner finds that Orriss discloses a test cell comprising a
plurality of slots each having a carrier for receiving a single disk drive and
discloses moving the carriers out of slots into an open position so that the
carrier can receive the disk drive, inserting the disk drive into the carrier, and
moving the carrier into a closed position back in the slot. Final Act. 2
(providing citations to Orriss). Figure 5 of Orriss, reproduced below,
illustrates how its carriers can slide in and out of slots.
4
Appeal 2016-001447
Application 13/375,413
Figure 5 is a diagrammatic perspective view of the Orriss apparatus shown
with a gripping device gripping a coupling structure that projects outwardly
from the front of the mounting to allow the carrier to slide in or out. Orriss
1142,45,52-56.
The Examiner finds that Orriss does not specifically teach “moving
the carrier out of the slot into an open position wherein the carrier remains in
contact with the slot; and inserting a disk drive into the carrier when the
carrier is still in contact with the slot.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds,
however, that Starr teaches a system comprising moving a carrier out a slot
into an open position wherein the carrier remains in contact with the slot,
and inserting a disk drive into the carrier when the carrier is still in contact
with the slot. Id. at 3 (providing citations to Starr). Figure IB of Starr,
reproduced below, illustrates its apparatus.
5
Appeal 2016-001447
Application 13/375,413
Figure IB shows a commercial embodiment in an accordance with an
embodiment of the Starr invention. Starr 111.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Orriss so that its carrier maintains contact with the slot when moving into an
open position or when a disk drive is inserted (as taught by Starr) because
doing so would “simplify the process and/or configuration and improve the
efficiency of the inserting/removing process.” Final Act. 3. A
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings of fact and
conclusion.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s explanation for combining the
references’ teachings is insufficient because the Examiner fails to “provide
evidence that the proposed modification actually simplifies or improves
efficiency of Orriss’s inserting/removing process.” Appeal Br. 5. Proof of
simplification or improved efficiency, however, need not be explicitly
6
Appeal 2016-001447
Application 13/375,413
spelled out by the prior art references. See KSR Int 7 v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 419 (“The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or
by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents.”) It is apparent from the figures and text of Orriss
that it would be easier (i.e., simpler and more efficient) to (A) slide a carrier
out of a slot of Orriss, insert a disk drive, and slide the carrier back into the
slot than it would be to (B) slide a carrier entirely out of the slot of Orriss so
that it no longer touches the slot, insert a disk drive, realign the carrier with
the slot, and then slide the carrier back into the slot. Indeed, this added
efficiency in the process taught by Starr is akin why people open their
dresser drawers to put in and remove clothing without entirely removing the
dresser drawer in the process.
Appellants cite Ex parte Rykowski, Appeal 2009-003868 (BPAI Sept.
21, 2010) as presenting a “similar fact pattern” where the Board reversed the
Examiner’s rejection. The cited case is both non-precedential and
distinguishable. In Ex parte Rykowski, the Examiner did not provide
reasoning as to why “conversion to tristimulus values performs equally well
as chromaticity and luminance values or another value conversion” and did
not explain why “conversion to tristimulus values increases precision for
color/brightness values.” Id. at 6. There, the Board did not find that these
underlying facts were apparent in the cited art. Here, in contrast, the
Examiner did not need to explicitly state why it is more efficient to slide a
carrier out to insert a drive rather than sliding a carrier out and removing it
completely because the increased efficiency and simplification is apparent
from the cited references themselves. See discussion of cited art, supra.
7
Appeal 2016-001447
Application 13/375,413
Because Appellants have not identified harmful Examiner error, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—10.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8