Ex parte Lee

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 3, 1999

08036857 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 3, 1999)

The application, entitled “Optical Pickup Lens Cleaning1
Device for Double-Sided Disk Player,” was filed March 25,
1993. The application claims the foreign filing priority
benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of Korean Patent Application No.
92-17755, which was filed on September 29, 1992.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte YOUNG W. LEE
____________
Appeal No. 96-3388
Application No. 08/036,8571
____________
HEARD: July 15, 1998
____________
Before KRASS, FLEMING and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the final rejection of claims 8 and 9. We reverse.
Appeal No. 96-3388 Page 2
Application No. 08/036,857
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue in this appeal relates to cleaning
the optical pickup lens of a double-sided disk player.
Conventionally a double-sided disk player includes an optical
pickup assembly that is vertically movable to access the upper
and lower sides of a disk being played. This permits a single
pickup assembly to record or reproduce signals from opposite
sides of the disk. The pickup assembly requires periodic
cleaning to remove foreign particles from its lens.
The invention eliminates the need for a separate lens
cleaning process. It automatically cleans the lens when the
lens is moved from one side of the disk to the other. More
specifically, the lens is cleaned continuously by a brush
while the pickup assembly is being moved.

Claim 8, which is representative for our purposes,
follows:
8. An optical pickup lens cleaning device for a
double-sided disk player for recording desired
signals on each side of the double-sided disk or
reproducing desired signals from each side of the
double-sided disk, the disk player including first
Appeal No. 96-3388 Page 3
Application No. 08/036,857
and second, parallel rack gears respectively
disposed on opposite sides of said disk, a semi-
circular rack gear interconnecting corresponding
ends of said first and second rack gear, said first
and second rack gear and said semi-circular rack
gear constituting a continuous U-shaped gear path,
an optical pickup assembly disposed on said gear
path and being movable from one side of said disk to
opposite side thereof, said pickup assembly
including an optical lens and drive means for
driving said pickup assembly along said gear path,
the optical pickup lens cleaning device comprising:
means, disposed proximate a center of an
arc of the semicircular rack, for cleaning the lens
of said optical pickup assembly during its movement
from said one side to said opposite side, wherein
said lens cleaning means includes a fixed shaft
connected at opposite sides thereof to a fixed frame
and a brush rotatably disposed on said shaft.
The references relied on by the patent examiner in
rejecting the claims follow:
Okamoto et al. (Okamoto) 5,157,648 Oct. 20, 1992
Kusaura 2-193330 Jul. 31, 1990
(Japanese Patent)
Takei et al. (Takei) H4-82001 Mar. 16, 1992
(Japanese Patent)
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Okamoto in view of Kusaura and Takei.
(Examiner’s Answer at 3.) Rather than repeat the arguments of
Appeal No. 96-3388 Page 4
Application No. 08/036,857
the appellant or examiner in toto, we refer to the appeal and
reply briefs and the examiner’s answers for the respective
details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejection and evidence
advanced by the examiner. We also considered the appellant’s
and examiner’s arguments. After considering the record before
us, it is our view that the evidence and level of skill in the
art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art the invention of claims 8 and 9. Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin our consideration of the obviousness of the
claims by recalling that in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the patent examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. A prima facie
case is established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject
Appeal No. 96-3388 Page 5
Application No. 08/036,857
matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. If the
examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, an obviousness
rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993). With this in mind, we analyze the examiner’s
rejection.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the examiner observes Okamoto
teaches a double-sided disk player including first and second
parallel rack gears, a semi-circular rack gear, and an optical
pickup assembly including an optical lens and drive means. He
admits Okamoto is silent as to a rotating cleaning brush
disposed in the center of an arc of the semi-circular rack via
a shaft. The examiner notes Kusaura discloses a cleaning
brush mounted on a bracket for cleaning the lens of an optical
disk player. (Examiner’s Answer at 3.) He concludes it would
have been obvious to provide Okamoto’s disk player with
Kusaura’s cleaning brush to provide effective cleaning of dust
on the optical pickup. (Id. at 4.)
Appeal No. 96-3388 Page 6
Application No. 08/036,857
The examiner also notes Takei teaches a rotating cleaning
brush with a shaft for cleaning a transducer. (Id. at 3.) He
appears to conclude it would have been obvious to replace
Kusaura’s stationary brush with Takei’s rotating brush to
provide more cleaning agitation and prevent damage caused by a
large force concentrated in a small area. (Id. at 4.) In
response, the appellant argues the brush must be located to
accomplish cleaning as the optical pickup moves from one side
of the disk to the opposite side. (Reply Br. at 2.) He
asserts the combination of Kusaura with Okamoto would locate
the brush immediately adjacent the outer periphery of the disk
so the optical head would be cleaned twice when it is conveyed
from the lower side of the disk to the upper side. (Appeal
Br. at 5-6.)
We find the references would have failed to suggest the
means for cleaning of claim 8. The claim recites in pertinent
part “means ... for cleaning the lens of said optical pickup
assembly during its movement from said one side to said
opposite side ....” (Appeal Br. at 9.) The appellant
explains this limitation means the optical lens is cleaned
Appeal No. 96-3388 Page 7
Application No. 08/036,857
during the entire time in which the optical assembly is moving
along the entire arc of the semi-circular rack gear 15c.
(Appeal Br. at 3, 6.) During oral hearing, appellant’s
representative stressed the optical lens is cleaned
continuously during this entire time of movement along the
arc.

Comparison of the claim language to the teachings of
Okamoto, Takei, and Kusaura evidences the references would not
have suggested the claimed means for cleaning. Okamoto is
silent as to a cleaning means. Takei is irrelevant to the
positioning of a cleaning means in an optical disk drive.
Kusaura discloses positioning a cleaning brush at the
outermost circumferential portion of a disk cartridge. P.
192, Figs. 1-3. The examiner and appellant agree a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
Kusaura with Okamoto to locate a brush in the outermost
circumferential position of the disk in Okamoto, which they
refer to as “option 1.” (Examiner’s Answer at 5; Appeal Br.
at 5-6.) A brush located in this position, however, would
Appeal No. 96-3388 Page 8
Application No. 08/036,857
clean the lens twice during the movement of the optical
assembly from one side of the disk to the other. It would
clean the lens at the beginning of the semi-circular rack gear
and at its end. The brush would not clean the lens during the
entire time in which the optical assembly is moving along the
entire arc of the semi-circular rack gear. In other words,
cleaning would not be continuous during the entire time of
movement along the arc as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner failed to show
the references would have suggested means for cleaning as in
independent claim 8 and its dependent claim 9. Accordingly,
we find the examiner’s rejection of these claims does not
amount to a prima facie case of obviousness. Because the
examiner has not established a prima facie case, the rejection
of the claims over Okamoto in view of Kusaura and Takei is
improper. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of the claims 8
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Appeal No. 96-3388 Page 9
Application No. 08/036,857

REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LLB/kis
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037