Ex Parte Mahnad

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

14090240 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/090,240 11/26/2013 FARAMARZ MAHNAD
51344 7590 09/28/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,C /Oracle America/ SUN I STK
1000 TOWN CENTER, TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
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.
ORA130706-US-NP 9943
EXAMINER
BERNARDI, BRENDA C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte F ARAMARZ MAHN AD
Appeal2015-007380
Application 14/090,240
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-007380
Application 14/090,240
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to "methods and apparatuses for
detecting the movement of transducer heads in optical storage systems."
Spec. ,-r 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for providing tracking error signals in an
optical digital storage system, the optical digital storage system
including a transducer head and a wobble detection system, the
method comprising:
receiving a wobble signal having a first frequency from
the wobble detection system, the wobble detection system
including an optical pick up unit that detects positions of the
transducer head relative to lands and grooves in an optical
recording medium, the wobble signal for the optical pick up unit
centered on a land being 180 degrees out of phase with the
wobble signal for the optical pick up unit centered on a groove,
the wobble signal being amplitude modulated for positions
intermediate between the land and the groove;
receiving a primary tracking error signal from the wobble
detection system;
multiplying the wobble signal with a synchronous signal
to produce a product signal, the product signal being positive for
a first direction of motion and negative for a second direction of
motion that is opposite that of the first direction; and
integrating the product signal to obtain a quadrature track
error signal, the quadrature track error signal being 90 degrees
out of phase with the primary track error signal, the quadrature
track error signal and the track error signal in combination
providing direction information about movement of the
transducer head across data tracks.
2
Appeal2015-007380
Application 14/090,240
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kadlec et al. (US 7,260,031 B2; issued Aug.
21, 2007) and Watanabe et al. (US 2007/0203667 Al; published Aug. 30,
2007). Final Act. 3-13. 1
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kadlec, Watanabe, and Van Vlerken et al. (US 6,765,861
B2; issued July 20, 2004; filed Jan. 24, 2003). Final Act. 13-14.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON KADLEC AND WAT AN ABE
Claims 1-11 and 13-19
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-11, and 13-19 as unpatentable over Kadlec and
Watanabe.
Appellant contends that
Watanabe does not provide any disclosure regarding the
manipulation of wobble signals derived from optical storage
media. Therefore, Watanabe is not able to remedy the
requirements of claims 1 and 11 that "the quadrature track error
signal and the track error signal in combination provid[ e]
direction information about movement of the transducer head
across data tracks."
App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2 ("Watanabe does not disclosure calculating
a quadrature track error signal from a product signal formed by multiplying
1 Throughout this Decision, we also refer to ( 1) the Final Action, mailed Oct.
7, 2014 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed Mar. 9, 2015 ("App. Br.");
(3) the Examiner's Answer mailed June 23, 2015 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply
Brief filed Aug. 3, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2015-007380
Application 14/090,240
a wobble signal with a synchronous signal. In particular, Watanabe does not
provide any disclosure for wobble signals.").
The Examiner, however, finds that Kadlec, not Watanabe, teaches the
recited wobble signal. See Final Act. 3--4. As the Examiner explains, the
rejection merely relies on Watanabe for "disclos[ing] a digital quadrature
signal detector ([F]ig. 5) which detects a quadrature-phase component by
integrating the product of a detection signal and a square wave of the same
frequency and different in phase by 90 degrees (paragraph [0104])." Ans.
2-3. Appellant does not dispute these teaching as applied to the detected
signal of Watanabe, but, as noted above, only contest that Watanabe lacks
the recited wobble signal. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, we are not
persuaded that the Examine erred in finding that Kadlec and Watanabe
combined fail to teach the recited wobble signal limitations.
Appellant additionally argues that "Watanabe is clearly non-
analogous art that would not be consulted by one skilled in the art of optical
storage devices." App. Br. 6. Appellant points out that Watanabe uses
sound waves or ultrasonic waves to measure distance and, thus, "Watanabe
has no application at all to the detection of the direction of motion of a
transducer head across an optical recording tape." App. Br. 5-6; Reply
Br. 1.
We find this argument unpersuasive. Our reviewing court has set
forth a two-prong test for determining whether a prior art reference is
analogous: (1) whether the reference is from the same field of endeavor as
4
Appeal2015-007380
Application 14/090,240
the claimed invention, and (2) if the reference is not within the same field of
endeavor, whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343,
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
While we recognize that Watanabe is not directed to optical recording
media, we find that Watanabe and the present application are within the
same field of endeavor as they are both directed to manipulation of waves to
obtain positional information. Compare Watanabe, Abstract with Spec. i-f 1.
Watanabe is also reasonably pertinent to the particular problem to the
problem of the present application, namely obtaining positional information
for an object. As Appellant notes, quadrature signals exist in many contexts
(Reply Br. 1) and, here, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
reasoning that a skilled artisan would recognize that "[t]he use of this known
digital circuit technique [to obtain positional information] taught by
Watanabe to generate the quadrature track error signal of Kadlec would have
yielded predictable results and provided the reliability of digital circuits."
Ans. 3.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we sustain the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-19 as unpatentable over the
combination of Kadlec and Watanabe.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON KADLEC, WATANABE,
AND VAN VLERKEN
Claim 12
Appellant does not separately argue patentability for dependent claim
12 and, instead, relies on the arguments presented for claim 1. See App. Br.
7; Ans. 5. For the reasons discussed above, we find these arguments
5
Appeal2015-007380
Application 14/090,240
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 as
unpatentable over the combination of Kadlec, Watanabe, and Van Vlerken.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19.
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
6