Ex Parte Nakao

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 28, 2011

11143576 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 28, 2011)

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rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4; claim 3 having been withdrawn by Appellant;
and the rejection of claims 5-8 having been withdrawn by the Examiner.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