Ex parte Oguro

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 9, 2001

08480934 (B.P.A.I. May. 9, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MASAKI OGURO
____________
Appeal No. 1998-3390
Application No. 08/480,934
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, LALL, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 15-16, 18-19,
21-23 and 25, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 1998-3390
Application No. 08/480,934
2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method for recording and reproducing a digital
signal. The methodology inserts identification data into a timing area in each track to
identify the corresponding data structure to be used for the track and to further insert
additional identification data identifying respective data structures to be used in the
respective areas throughout the track at these selected areas. The additional data
structures are independent of the initial data structure identified in the timing area. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 15, which
is reproduced below.
15. In a method for digitally recording and reproducing information data in
successive oblique tracks on a recording tape by means of rotary heads
scanning said tracks in succession, the improvement comprising the steps
of:
providing a timing area adjacent only an entrance end of each of said
tracks at which said heads first come into scanning contact with said tape;
repetitively recording in said timing area of each of said tracks, at
respective locations spaced apart in said timing area in a direction of said
scanning along the respective track, identification data comprised of at least
three bits which stipulate a corresponding data structure for the track
including a number of additional areas following said timing area in a
direction away from said entrance end of the respective track for the
recording by said heads in said additional areas of plural blocks of
respective information data and data ancillary thereto; and
repetitively adding, to said ancillary data of said blocks recorded in each
of said additional areas, respective additional identification data which have
the same data structure as said identification data recorded in said timing
Appeal No. 1998-3390
Application No. 08/480,934
3
area and which stipulate a data structure for the information data recorded in
the respective additional area independently of said data structure
stipulated for said track by said identification data recorded in said timing
area and also independently of the data structure stipulated for any other one
of said additional areas by said respective additional identification data
added to said ancillary data of the blocks recorded in said other additional
area, with said additional identification data being recorded in the
respective additional areas at respective locations which are spaced apart
along the respective additional areas in said direction of the scanning along
the track.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Staar 4,338,644 July 6, 1982
Wilkinson et al. (Wilkinson)4,819,089 Apr. 4, 1989
Claims 15, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wilkinson. Claims 16 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Wilkinson in view of Staar.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 21, mailed Aug. 19, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 20, filed May 27, 1997) and reply
brief (Paper No. 24, filed Dec. 10, 1997) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 1998-3390
Application No. 08/480,934
4
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that the combination of Wilkinson and the examiner’s well known
Table of Contents does not render the invention as recited in claims 15 and 21 obvious.
(See brief at pages 19-23.) We agree with appellant. The examiner relies on the “table of
contents” to teach the indication of a data structure which is admitted to be not taught by
Wilkinson. (See answer at pages 3-4.) We disagree with the examiner. In our view, the
table of contents is a structure to data, but the inclusion with the data would not provide the
claimed
identification data comprised of at least three bits which stipulate a corresponding
data structure for the track including a number of additional areas following said
timing area in a direction away from said entrance end of the respective track for the
recording by said heads in said additional areas
nor would it provide the claimed
respective additional identification data which have the same data structure as said
identification data recorded in said timing area and which stipulate a data structure for
the information data recorded in the respective additional area independently of said
data structure stipulated for said track by said identification data recorded in said
timing area and also independently of the data structure stipulated for any other one of
said additional areas.
Appeal No. 1998-3390
Application No. 08/480,934
5
The examiner rationalizes that the table of contents would provide easy links between
related video and audio (ancillary) data sections, thereby improving the audio-video output.
We disagree with the examiner’s rationale for inclusion of the table of contents into the
system of Wilkinson. Since each track is a linear storage area, we do not find a
convincing motivation for skilled artisans to desire to enable “rapid location of desired
items” (see answer at page 3) as advanced by the examiner.
We agree with appellant that the inclusion of the table of contents may provide the
indication of the structure of the remaining data areas from the initial inclusion in timing
area, but the additional data structures at those identified areas would not necessarily be
“independent” of the other data structures as claimed. (See brief at pages 21-22.)
Moreover, in a serial read/write system as taught by Wilkinson, the examiner’s motivation
for rapid location of desired items is not a convincing line of reasoning for the combination
of the two teachings. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 15 and its
dependent claims 18 and 19. Independent claim 21 contains similar limitations and
therefore, the combination of Wilkinson and the Table of Contents does not suggest the
invention as claimed, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 21 and its dependent
claims 22 and 25.
Appeal No. 1998-3390
Application No. 08/480,934
6
With respect to the combination of Wilkinson and Staar, we find that Staar does not
remedy the deficiency noted above. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
16 and 23.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 15-16, 18-19, 21-23 and
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-3390
Application No. 08/480,934
7
JD/RWK
Appeal No. 1998-3390
Application No. 08/480,934
8
FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG
745 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10151