Ex Parte Kim

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2012

11068858 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2012)

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.
11/068,858 03/02/2005 Seung-hoon Kim 1793.1533 9711
21171 7590 08/29/2012
STAAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
HEYI, HENOK G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2012 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 SEUNG-HOON KIM
_____________

Appeal 2010-004066
Application 11/068,858
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 5-8, 18, and 19. Claims 1-4 and 9-17 are cancelled.
Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Appeal 2010-004066
Application 11/068,858

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to an apparatus and method described
for reducing the latency introduced by recording a user action. See
Abstract.

Claim 5 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below:

5. A method of recording data on a recordable optical storage
medium having a plurality of recording layers for recording data the method
comprising:
recording data on grooves of at least one of the plurality of recording
layers; and
recording data on lands of at least another recording layer of the
plurality of recording layers adjacent to the at least one recording layers,
wherein, when a focusing error occurs due to a disturbance during
recording data on grooves of the at least one recording layers, a laser beam
focusing is transferred to grooves of the at least another recording layer, and
wherein, when a focusing error occurs due to a disturbance during
recording data on lands of the at least another recording layer, the laser beam
focusing is transferred to lands of the at least one recording layer.

Appeal 2010-004066
Application 11/068,858

3

REFERENCES
Kojima US 2002/0024913 A1 Feb. 28, 2002

Shoji US 2003/0031098 A1 Feb. 13, 2003

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 5-8, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kojima and Shoji. Ans. 3-8.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kojima and
Shoji teaches or suggests:
A. recording data on grooves of at least one of the plurality of
recording layers; and
B. recording data on lands of at least another recording layer of the
plurality of recording layers adjacent to the at least one
recording layers,
C. wherein, when a focusing error occurs due to a disturbance
during recording data on grooves of the at least one recording
layers, a laser beam focusing is transferred to grooves of the at
least another recording layer, and
D. wherein, when a focusing error occurs due to a disturbance
during recording data on lands of the at least another recording
layer, the laser beam focusing is transferred to lands of the at
Appeal 2010-004066
Application 11/068,858

4
least one recording layer. As recited in independent claim 5?
(Emphasis added).
ANALYSIS
We discern no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-8, 18,
and 19. Independent Claim 5 requires:
A. recording data on grooves of at least one of the plurality of
recording layers; and
B. recording data on lands of at least another recording layer of the
plurality of recording layers adjacent to the at least one
recording layers,
C. wherein, when a focusing error occurs due to a disturbance
during recording data on grooves of the at least one recording
layers, a laser beam focusing is transferred to grooves of the at
least another recording layer, and
D. wherein, when a focusing error occurs due to a disturbance
during recording data on lands of the at least another recording
layer, the laser beam focusing is transferred to lands of the at
least one recording layer.
Dependent claims 6-8, and independent claims 18 and 19 are not
argued separately and stand or fall with claim 5.
Appellant argues that Kojima does not discuss the possibility of data
loss in a first recording layer during recording data in a second layer
adjacent thereto as recited in elements C and D of the limitation above.
App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner relies
Appeal 2010-004066
Application 11/068,858

5
on Kojima and Shoji to teach this element of claim 5. Ans. 4-5. Shoji
teaches a disturbance during recording data on another recording layer may
change the focus of a laser beam to the undesired recording layer causing
data loss. Ans. 9. (citing Shoji [0013]).
Appellant further argues that Kojima teaches [in elements A and B
recited above] that the lands and grooves are not formed “in” the recording
layer but between a first substrate and a first dielectric layer. App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded by this argument. Claim 5 does not specify particular
parts of the recording layer and simply states that the recording is done “on”
the recording layer. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate
with the scope of claim 5. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Figure 1 of Kojima
shows that first recording layer 13 and second recording layer 14 have
grooves and lands on them. See Ans. 9.
Appellant further argues that Shoji does not teach or suggest recording
on grooves a first layer and when a disturbance occurs recording on the
grooves of a second layer, as recited in claim 5. App. Br. 12-13. We are
not persuaded by this argument. The combination of Kojima and Shoji teach
this limitation. Shoji teaches a disturbance during recording data on another
recording layer may change the focus of a laser beam to the undesired
recording layer. Shoji [0013]. Kojima teaches “in the case where grooves
are formed on both the first information layer 13 and the second information
layer 14, the recording of information onto the first information layer
13/second information layer 14 may be either groove recording/groove
recording, groove recording/land recording, land recording/groove
recording, or land recording/land recording.” Kojima [0099]. Thus, Kojima
Appeal 2010-004066
Application 11/068,858

6
contemplates having both grooves and lands on both the first and second
layer. We find one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if a
device according to Kojima is using groove recording on a first layer with
land recording on a second layer, when a disturbance occurs while recording
the groove on the first layer as contemplated by Shoji, the laser beam may
focus on the groove of the second layer, thus avoiding damage to the
information which is recorded on the land of the second layer. See Ans. 3-4.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kojima and Shoji
teaches or suggest the limitations of claim 5 at issue.
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5-8, 18, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Kojima and Shoji.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5-8, 18, and 19 is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED

dw