Ex Parte Livshitz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 201613302169 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/302, 169 11/22/2011 57299 7590 03/24/2016 Kathy Manke A vago Technologies Limited 4380 Ziegler Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Boris Livshitz 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. AGERE-025900 (Lll-0514) CONFIRMATION NO. 3149 EXAMINER NEGRON, DANIELL L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2688 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2016 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): kathy.manke@broadcom.com patent.info@broadcom.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BORIS LIVSHITZ, ROSS S. WILSON, and JASON S. GOLDBERG Appeal2014-006133 Application 13/302,169 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOV AN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-20. Claim 7 is objected to and is thus not before us on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.2 1 Appellants identify LSI Corporation as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) 2 Our decision refers to the Specification filed Nov. 22, 2011 ("Spec."); the Final Office Action mailed July 22, 2013 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 22, 2013 ("App. Br."); and the Examiner's Answer mailed Feb. 21, 2014 ("Ans."). Appeal2014-006133 Application 13/302,169 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to a magnetic recording system using a multi- level write current waveform. (Spec., Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1 An apparatus for magnetic recording with a multi-level write current waveform comprising: a magnetic write head; a pattern detection circuit operable to detect patterns in data to be written by the magnetic write head and to yield a pattern indicator signal; and a write driver operable to generate the multi-level write current waveform for the magnetic write head, wherein at least one electrical characteristic of the multi-level write current waveform is based upon the patterns detected by the pattern detection circuit. REJECTIONS Claims 1---6, 9, 10, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on l\1elbye (US 4,482,927; iss. Nov. 13, 1984). (Final 1A..ct. 3.) Claims 11, 12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Melbye. (Final Act. 4.) Claims 8 and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Melbye and VanEaton (US 7,372,649; iss. May 13, 2008). (Final Act. 4.) ANALYSIS 102(b)- Claims 1-6, 9, 10, and 18-20 Appellants argue the Examiner improperly rejected claims 1---6, 9, 10, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Melbye. (App. Br. 10). According to Appellants, the Examiner's interpretation of "multi-level write current waveform" in claim 1 renders the term "multi-level" 2 Appeal2014-006133 Application 13/302,169 meaningless because Melbye's current is either positive or negative saturation current. Thus, according to Appellants, Melbye discloses only one current level flowing in either the positive or negative direction. We disagree the Examiner erred. Appellants point to the Specification, Figure 3B and paragraph 34, as support for their position. (App. Br. 10-11.) However, the cited paragraph merely describes an example of a waveform providing various overshoots for preamplifier write current for different kinds of transitions in encoded write data. This paragraph falls short of defining the term "multi-level write current waveform" to include more than two write current levels, as the Examiner noted. (See Ans. 8-9.) Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, we find Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Specifically, claim l does not recite the "multi-level write current waveform" includes more than two write current levels. Furthermore, claim 1 does not recite the write current levels required for varying overshoots corresponding to various data transitions to ensure data is correctly written to a magnetic storage medium. The Examiner is correct the term "multi-level write current waveform" is disclosed by Melbye' s binary write current levels, as shown, for example, by the 'write current' in the waveform diagram of Melbye, Figure 2. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 2---6, 9, 10, and 18, and thus we sustain their rejection. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 3 Appeal2014-006133 Application 13/302,169 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The rejection of claim 19 was withdrawn in the Examiner's Answer. (Ans. 8.) Thus, the rejection of this claim is no longer before us on appeal. Appellants argue claim 20 on the same basis as claim 1. For the reasons stated, we sustain the rejection of claim 20. 103(a)-Claims 11, 12, and 17 Appellants argue against the rejection of dependent claims 11, 12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Melbye using the same argument presented for claim 1. (App. Br. 12.) For the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1, we are unpersuaded by this argument. We find the Examiner provided adequate "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 11, 12, and 17. See King, Sernaker, supra. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 103(a)- Claims 8 and 13-16 Appellants argue against the rejection of dependent claims 8 and 13- 16 on the same basis as claim 1. Because we disagree with Appellants' argument concerning claim 1, and because we find the Examiner provided adequate reasoning and underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness (see KSR supra), we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 8 and 13-16. (See King, Sernaker, supra. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)). 4 Appeal2014-006133 Application 13/302,169 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6 and 8- 18, and 20 are sustained. 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). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation