Ex Parte NakaoDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 28, 201111143576 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 28, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 11/143,576 06/03/2005 Takashi Nakao SON-3314 1181 23353 7590 11/28/2011 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC LION BUILDING 1233 20TH STREET N.W., SUITE 501 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 EXAMINER FISCHER, MARK L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/28/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte TAKASHI NAKAO ____________ Appeal 2010-006037 Application 11/143,576 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ST JOHN COURTENAY, III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006037 Application 11/143,576 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4; claim 3 having been withdrawn by Appellant; and the rejection of claims 5-8 having been withdrawn by the Examiner. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is an optical head/drive apparatus that detects the reflection of diffracted light produced by a laser light source onto a recording medium having a plurality of information recording layers. An included light-receiving device comprises a first light-receiving section for detecting reflected light of the 0-order diffracted light, two second light- receiving sections for detecting reflected light of the +1-order diffracted light and reflected light of the -1-order diffracted light, and a third light- receiving section provided near at least one of the second light-receiving sections to receive stray light reflected from one or more information recording layers other than a target information recording layer to be accessed. See Abstract Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. An optical head comprising: a laser light source; an optical system that produces 0-order diffracted light, +1-order diffracted light, and -1-order diffracted light from laser light emitted from the laser light source, that forms an optical path for applying the 0-order diffracted light, the +1-order diffracted light, and the -1-order diffracted Appeal 2010-006037 Application 11/143,576 3 light onto a recording medium having a plurality of information recording layers, and that forms an optical path for guiding reflected light from the recording medium; and a light-receiving device for receiving and detecting the reflected light guided by the optical system, wherein the light-receiving device includes a first light-receiving section divided at least in a tangential direction of a recording track on the recording medium to detect reflected light of the 0-order diffracted light, two second light-receiving sections divided at least in the tangential direction of the recording track on the recording medium to detect reflected light of the +1-order diffracted light and reflected light of the -1-order diffracted light, and two third light-receiving sections provided near each of the two second light-receiving sections and at positions such as not to receive reflected light of the 0-order diffracted light, reflected light of the +1-order diffracted light, and reflected light of the -1-order diffracted light from a target information recording layer of the information recording layers to be accessed, the third light-receiving sections receiving stray light reflected from one or more information recording layers other than the target information recording layer, and wherein the third light-receiving sections each have an area equivalent to the area of photoreceptors of the two second light-receiving sections. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Hayashi US 6,798,723 B2 Sept. 28, 2004 Rokutan US 6,034,933 Mar. 7, 2000 THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayashi and Rokutan. Ans. 4-7.1 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 30, 2009, the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 20, 2009, the Reply Brief filed Appeal 2010-006037 Application 11/143,576 4 CONTENTIONS Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hayashi discloses an optical head having a light detecting device which includes a first light receiving section which is divided in tangential direction of a recording track and a second light receiving section for detecting reflected light of the +1-order diffracted light and the -1-order refracted light where the second light receiving sections are also divided in a tangential direction. The Examiner acknowledges that Hayashi does not explicitly disclose two third light receiving sections for receiving stray light reflected from one or more information recording layers other than the target information recording layer, but cites Rokutan for a disclosure of leak light receiving sections positioned to receive stray light. Ans. 4-7. Appellant argues that Hayashi does not disclose a third light receiving section for receiving stray light. In addressing the Examiner’s citation of Rokutan for that feature, Appellant argues that the second light receiving sections disclosed in Rokutan are not “divided tangentially” and that Rokutan only discloses one information recording layer and consequently the third light receiving section in Rokutan cannot be said to be utilized for “receiving stray light reflected from one or more information recording layers other than the target information recording layer” as set forth in exemplary claim 1. App. Br. 15-22, Reply Br. 6-7. Appellant also argues that Rokutan fails to disclose third light-receiving sections having an area September 29, 2009, the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer mailed November 27, 2009, and the Supplemental Reply Brief filed December 22, 2009. Appeal 2010-006037 Application 11/143,576 5 equivalent to the area of the photoreceptors of the two second light-receiving sections. App. Br. 19-22, Reply Br. 7-9, Suppl. Reply Br. 4-5. The issue before us, then, is as follows: ISSUE 1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4 by finding that Hayashi and Rokutan collectively would have taught or suggested an optical head/drive apparatus having (1) a first light-receiving section divided at least in a tangential direction of a recording track on the recording medium for detecting reflected light of the 0-order diffracted light; (2) two second light-receiving sections divided at least in a tangential direction of a recording track on the recording medium for detecting reflected light of the +1-order diffracted light and reflected light of the -1-order diffracted light; (3) two third light-receiving sections provided near each of the two second light-receiving sections for receiving stray light from one or more information recording layers other than the target information layer; and (4) “wherein the third light-receiving sections each have an area equivalent to the area of photoreceptors of the two second light-receiving sections” as recited in claim 1? FINDINGS OF FACT We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). Appeal 2010-006037 Application 11/143,576 6 1. Hayashi discloses an optical pickup head and recording device having a first optical detector 31 which includes a first light-receiving section which comprises sections 31a, 31b, 31c, and 31d. The first light- receiving section of Hayashi is for receiving a main beam (0-order diffracted light) and that section is divided at least in a tangential direction of a recording track on the recording medium. Hayashi discloses two second light-receiving sections, comprising sections 31e, 31f, 31g, and 31h for receiving two sub-beams (+1-order diffracted light and -1-order diffracted light) wherein each pair of sections is divided at least in a tangential direction of a recording track on the recording medium. See Hayashi, Fig. 3, col. 13, ll. 46-63. 2. Rokutan discloses an optical recording and reproducing apparatus which utilizes a leak light receiving section which receives “only the undesired recording light beams reflected from the optical card 4.” See Rokutan, Abstract. 3. Rokutan discloses the use of the leak light receiving sections where the area of the light leak receiving sections is preferably identical to the area of the light receiving sections so that stray light may be simply subtracted from the desired light signals detected at the associated light receiving sections. See Rokutan, col. 10, ll. 19-23 and ll. 46-51. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Hayashi discloses an optical head having a first light-receiving section (31a-31d) divided in at least a tangential direction of a recording track on the recording medium for detecting reflected light of the 0-order diffracted light and two second light-receiving Appeal 2010-006037 Application 11/143,576 7 sections (31e-31f and 31g-31h) divided in at least a tangential direction of a recording track on the recording medium for detecting reflected light of the +1-order diffracted light and the -1-order diffracted light. The Examiner also finds that Hayashi does not explicitly disclose two third light-receiving sections provided near the second light-receiving sections for receiving stray light reflected from one or more information recording layers other than the target information recording layer. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner cites Rokutan for a teaching, in a similar system, of the use of a pair of third light-receiving sections for detecting stray light, finding that Rokutan teaches that the area of such third light-receiving sections should be identical to the area of the light-receiving sections which are to be corrected for the effect of stray light, and further finding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the first and second light-receiving sections of Hayashi with the stray light receiving sections of Rokutan. Ans. 5-6 Appellant acknowledges that Hayashi teaches multiple information recording layers (App. Br. 15) but argues that Rokutan fails to disclose two second light-receiving sections that are divided in at least a tangential direction of a recording track on the recording medium. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 6; and Suppl. Reply Br. 5. Appellant also argues that Rokutan only discloses one information recording layer and consequently cannot be said to show or suggest two third light-receiving sections provided near the second light-receiving sections for receiving stray light reflected from one or more information recording layers other than the target information recording layer. App. Br. 17, Reply Br. 6-7. Appeal 2010-006037 Application 11/143,576 8 Finally, Appellant argues that Rokutan fails to disclose that the third light-receiving sections have an area equivalent to the area of sections 26a and 26b within the Rokutan disclosure. App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 7-9; and Suppl. Reply Br. 2-7. The Appellant is correct in noting that Rokutan fails to disclose multiple information recording layers and that certain of the light-receiving sections of Rokutan are not tangentially divided; however, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757 (CCPA 1968). The Examiner finds that Hayashi clearly discloses a first light- receiving section that is tangentially divided, and two second light-receiving sections which are also tangentially divided. Appellant does not dispute that finding. We concur with the Examiner’s finding. (FF1). We also find that Rokutan discloses two light-receiving sections for detecting “only the undesired recording light beams reflected from the optical card 4.” (FF2). We find that teaching to be at least suggestive of the claimed function of light-receiving sections for “receiving stray light reflected from one or more information recording layers other than the target information recording layer” as recited in claim 1. Finally, we find that Rokutan discloses that it is preferable that each of the light-receiving sections for detecting stray light has a surface area that is identical to the surface area of each light-receiving section which is to be corrected for stray light, so that simple subtraction may be utilized for such correction. (FF3). Appeal 2010-006037 Application 11/143,576 9 We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1, and claims 2 and 4 not separately argued with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4 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 llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation