Ex Parte Nakamura

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2013

11570721 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/570,721 09/11/2007 Tadashi Nakamura 49288.4100 4369
52044 7590 12/31/2013
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. (Panasonic)
600 ANTON BOULEVARD
SUITE 1400
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
EXAMINER
SASINOWSKI, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TADASHI NAKAMURA

____________

Appeal 2011-001114
Application 11/570,721
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001114
Application 11/570,721

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claim 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to recording based on a last
recorded address in the track specified by a subsequent writable logical
address request instruction and the size of the at least one data to be
recorded. Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A drive apparatus for performing a sequential recording for a write-
once recording medium, wherein the write-once recording medium
includes a spare area and a user data area, at least one track is
allocated in the user data area, the drive apparatus comprising:
a recording/reproduction section for performing a recording operation
or a reproduction operation for the write-once recording medium;
a drive control section for controlling the recording/reproduction
section; and
a memory circuit for storing at least one data to be recorded,
wherein
the drive control section performs a process including:
receiving a next writable logical address request instruction at least
specifying the track;
determining a size of the at least one data to be recorded stored in the
memory circuit;
determining as a next writable address a physical address indicating a
location at which data can be recorded next in the track specified by the next
writable logical address request instruction, based on a last recorded address
in the track specified by the next writable logical address request instruction
and the size of the at least one data to be recorded;
translating the next writable address into a next writable logical
Appeal 2011-001114
Application 11/570,721

3
address; and
outputting the next writable logical address.

REFERENCE and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Suzuki (U.S. Pub. 2004/0151090 A1).

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Suzuki teaches
the limitation of
determining as a next writable address a physical address
indicating a location at which data can be recorded next in the
track specified by the next writable logical address request
instruction, based on a last recorded address in the track
specified by the next writable logical address request
instruction and the size of the at least one data to be recorded

as recited in claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Suzuki does not disclose or contemplate any
process by which a next writable address is determined, because the second
address information in Suzuki is not a writable address (App. Br. 4-5).
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 7) that Suzuki teaches a process by which a next writable
address (i.e., in Suzuki’s claim 1, generated second address information) is
Appeal 2011-001114
Application 11/570,721

4
determined, wherein the second address information is a writable address
(i.e., in Suzuki’s claim 1, wherein the second address “specifies a recording
area in the recording medium”) (Ans. 7).
We further agree with the Examiner that the term “writable” in
Appellant’s claim 1 does not equate to claiming that the second address is
necessarily written upon. Claim 1 only recites “determining as a next
writable address a physical address indicating a location at which data can
be written upon,” which means that the second address need only be able to
have data written upon it.
Appellant further argues that the second address information taught by
Suzuki has a different number of bits than the first address information
(App. Br. 4).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that Appellant’s claim 1 does
not require either that the first or second address information has a specific
number of bits, so the number of bits in the address information is not
commensurate in scope with the claim language.
Appellant further argues that Suzuki does not teach “sequential
recording,” as recited by claim 1 (App. Br. 4).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that “sequential recording” as
recited in claim 1 can be reasonably interpreted to mean that the address
blocks are written in a temporally sequential manner. Even though Suzuki
teaches that the address information sections are written using a spatially
random method (i.e., Suzuki’s claim 1 reciting “scrambling the data
sectors”), each address section is written sequentially (i.e., one at a time)
onto the disc.
Appeal 2011-001114
Application 11/570,721

5
Appellant argues that Suzuki and the claimed invention are directed to
different technical problems, and there is no motivation to apply the
disclosure of Suzuki to solving the problem of the claimed invention (App.
Br. 6).
We do not agree. The Examiner relied on an anticipatory rejection,
and thus, we do not address motivation. Furthermore, even if it was an
obviousness rejection, it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same
purpose as that disclosed in Appellant’s Specification in order to support the
conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In
re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972); see also KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (stating that “neither the particular
motivation nor the avowed purpose of the [Appellant] controls” in an
obviousness analysis).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Suzuki teaches the limitation
of
determining as a next writable address a physical address
indicating a location at which data can be recorded next in the
track specified by the next writable logical address request
instruction, based on a last recorded address in the track
specified by the next writable logical address request
instruction and the size of the at least one data to be recorded

as recited in claim 1.

Appeal 2011-001114
Application 11/570,721

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw