Ex Parte Lakshmikumaran et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 3, 201815062827 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 15/062,827 81505 ORACLE 7590 FILING DATE 03/07/2016 07/06/2018 (Oracle formerly d/b/a Sun Microsystems) 8055 East Tufts A venue Suite 450 Denver, CO 80237 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Anand V. Lakshmikumaran 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. ORA140954-US-CNT-l 3254 EXAMINER EV ANS, JEFFERSON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2688 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/06/2018 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): ptomail@mfblaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANAND V. LAKSHMIKUMARAN and JOSEPH E. TORLINE Appeal2018-000341 Application 15/062,827 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 10-20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Oracle International Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 4, 5, 8, and 9 are objected to and are not before us. Final Act. 4. Appeal2018-000341 Application 15/062,827 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to tape heads for writing data to and reading data from magnetic tape media. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of operating a tape drive, comprising: first moving a tape over a first module of a tape head, wherein the first moving includes: passing a first track of the tape over a span of transducers of the first module; passing the first track of the tape over a first edge portion of the first module; passing a second track of the tape over a second edge portion of the first module, wherein the second track of the tape is spaced from the first track of the tape along a reference line that is perpendicular to first and second opposite lateral edges of the tape, and wherein the first edge portion of the first module is sharper than the second edge portion of the first module; and second moving the tape over a second module of the tape head, wherein the second moving includes: passing the second track of the tape over a first edge portion of the second module; passing the second track of the tape over a span of transducers of the second module; and passing the first track of the tape over a second edge portion of the second module, wherein the first edge portion of the second module is sharper than the second edge portion of the second module. Sundaram Reference and Rejection US Patent 5,751,527 May 12, 1998 Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Sundaram (U.S. 5,751,527; May 12, 1998). 2 Appeal2018-000341 Application 15/062,827 ANALYSIS Anticipation We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Sundaram disclose "wherein the first edge portion of the first module is sharper than the second edge portion of the first module," as recited in independent claim 1. 3 See Appeal Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2--4. The Examiner cites Sundaram's Figure 2 and finds "at least part of the first track will be over a slot and thus over a sharper edge of the first module while at least part of the second track will be over a land and thus over a less sharp edge" (emphases added). Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 6. We have reviewed the cited Sundaram's Figure 2 and its associated description, and they do not disclose the bleed slot 102 has "a sharper edge" and the land 104 has a "less sharp edge," as the Examiner asserts (Final Act. 3). In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner asserts in an alternative mapping, "the lands 104 define the sharper edge and the slots 102 define the less sharp edge." Ans. 7. Again, we have reviewed the cited Sundaram's Figure 2 and its associated description, and they do not support the Examiner's assertion. Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited Sundaram's Figure 2 and its associated description disclose the disputed claim limitation. 3 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 3 Appeal2018-000341 Application 15/062,827 Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Each of independent claims 6 and 16 recites a claim limitation that is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 6 and 16. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claims 6 and 16. We also reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 10-15, and 17-20. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 10-20. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation