Ex parte KROON

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 2001

07944562 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JACOBUS P.C. KROON
____________
Appeal No. 1995-1052
Application No. 07/944,562
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before RUGGIERO, DIXON, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 10 and 13-
19, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 1995-1052
Application No. 07/944,562
2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an information recording device, record carrier
and information reading device on which successive independent pieces of time
synchronous information are stored. The instant invention resolves a problem of unused
track portions by storing information in as many released tracks portions as necessary.
During read-out, from the carrier, the segmented recorded portions of the information
piece in question are restored to their original time synchronous sequentially continuous
relationship. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 10, which is reproduced below.
10. A record carrier comprising a recording track having information
patterns recorded therein representing a plurality of pieces of time
synchronous continuous information; characterized in that: at least one track
portion has an information pattern recorded therein for a first complete
information piece; said one track portion is located between and adjoining
track portions in the track direction which have information patterns recorded
therein for different segments of another information piece, each segment is
of a length determined by the length of the track portion in which it is
recorded; and control information is recorded in the recording track
indicative of the locations of each of said adjoining track portions.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Hashimoto et al. (Hashimoto) 5,053,898 Oct. 01, 1991
Roth et al. (Roth) 5,212,678 May 18, 1993
(effective filing date Sep. 28, 1990)
Appeal No. 1995-1052
Application No. 07/944,562
3
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by, or in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Roth. Claim 10 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Hashimoto. Claims 13 -19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Roth.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed Aug. 26, 1994) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 14, filed Jun. 15, 1994) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
The examiner maintains that Hashimoto discloses at column 6 that control
information can be recorded with a RF signal in order to determine the presence or
absence of the RF signal and the control signal may be superimposed as a pulse signal
Appeal No. 1995-1052
Application No. 07/944,562
4
during the vertical blanking period in parallel with the recording of the RF signal. The
examiner maintains that the recorded RF signal may comprise a first information piece
recorded on a first track portion which is located between segments of a second piece of
information which is recorded within separate track portions adjoining the first track
portion. (See answer at page 4.) We disagree with the examiner. Here, the examiner has
relied upon no teaching in Hashimoto to teach the invention as recited in claim 10.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103
The examiner maintains that the recording medium of appellant is the same as that
taught by Roth, namely the permanent representation of the information stored thereon.
(See answer at page 3.) The examiner maintains that the claimed information content on
the record medium does not make a new record medium and the information is not
functionally related to the record medium (citing In re Gulack, 703 F2d 1381, 1385, 217
USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). (See answer at pages 3
and 6.) We disagree with the examiner. In our view, the storage of the time synchronous
data in a specific organization on the medium with the recorded control information
indicative of the locations of the adjoining track portions is more than merely stored
nonfunctional data. This interrelated and organized data with its control
Appeal No. 1995-1052
Application No. 07/944,562
5
information allows additional storage of data and retrieval thereof. From our
understanding of Roth, Roth is concerned mainly with the flow of data in the storage and
retrieval of blocks of data to and from memory. We do not find any teaching in Roth which
discloses the storage of segments of an information piece in a track portion adjoining a
first information piece. Furthermore, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
maintains that the information content on the memory is not entitled to patentable weight
and that it would have been obvious to skilled artisans to make a permanent
representation of the information content. (See answer at page 3.) We disagree with the
examiner. We find that the language of claim 10 includes more than just information
content, but also includes the organization of the information and that the inclusion of
control data is recorded in the recording track indicative of the locations of each of the
adjoining track portions. The examiner has not addressed these limitations, and since the
examiner has not identified any teachings in Roth to teach the invention as recited in claim
10, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 10.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner maintains that Hashimoto discloses the invention as recited in claim
13, but does not disclose a buffer means and control of the buffer. The examiner relies on
the teachings of Roth to teach the use of input and output buffers to
Appeal No. 1995-1052
Application No. 07/944,562
6
compensate for differences in speed of the supply/receive and speed of the read/write
with respect to the medium. (See answer at page 4.) The examiner maintains that the
combination would “inherently perform the control functions as claimed.” (See answer at
page 5.) We disagree with the examiner. From our understanding of the operation of the
buffers of Roth, the interrupts would cause a jump to a preceding portion of a track followed
by determination of when the point of the interrupt is later reached to restart the reading or
writing. (See Roth at column 2, lines 4-33.) Therefore, we disagree with the examiner’s
statement that the control means would “cause the search to position the head at a next
vacant track.” Rather, Roth merely teaches the jumping to a preceding portion of a track
and resume operation when that prior position is reached. Therefore, the examiner has
not provided a teaching of searching for a portion of a vacant track.
Appellant argues that Hashimoto merely teaches the storage of entire/complete
pieces of information on one track or in continuous sequences of tracks and therefore
does not record successive segments of a unitary piece of information interspersed with
tracks or track portions containing other pieces of unrelated information which are to be
retained in memory. (See brief at page 8.) We agree with appellant. In our view,
Hashimoto teaches the profiling of tracks to identify vacant tracks and then utilizing
Appeal No. 1995-1052
Application No. 07/944,562
7
this information to record additional information therein. (Hashimoto at col. 4.) The
examiner has not identified anywhere in Hashimoto where portions of tracks are used
to store additional information. Rather, Hashimoto uses only completely vacant tracks to
record additional information and if further information remains, then the next completely
vacant track is accessed and information recorded therein.
The examiner maintains that the combination of Hashimoto and Roth teaches and
suggests the invention as recited in claim 13. We disagree with the examiner. Here, the
examiner maintains that his rejection and interpretation of the prior art is “[a]ccording to the
interpretation of the claim language as described above.” (See answer at page 7.) As
discussed above, we disagree with the examiner’s interpretation of the claimed invention,
and the examiner’s discounting of appellant’s claim limitations and not according
patentable weight thereto does not treat the claimed invention as a whole. Therefore,
since the combination of Hashimoto and Roth does not teach or fairly suggest the invention
as recited in claim 13, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 13 and its
dependent claims 14-16. Independent claim 17 contains similar limitations, therefore, we
will not sustain the rejection of claim 17 and its dependent claims 18 and 19.
Appeal No. 1995-1052
Application No. 07/944,562
8
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10 and 13-19 under 35
U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jld/vsh
Appeal No. 1995-1052
Application No. 07/944,562
9
JACK E. HAKEN
CORPORATE PATENT COUNSEL
U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION
580 WHITE PLAINS ROAD
TARRYTOWN, NY 10591