Ex Parte Ozaki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2016

12944689 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/944,689 11/11/2010
121651 7590
John D, Henkhaus
7052 Santa Teresa Blvd
#203
San Jose, CA 95139-1348
02/09/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Takeshi Ozaki
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.
HGST154 6227
EXAMINER
CASTRO, ANGEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2016 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):
john.henkhaus@comcast.net
johnd.henkhaus@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKESHI OZAKI and TOSHIHIKO SHIMIZU
Appeal2014-001649
Application 12/944,689 1
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 12-14, 17, 18, and 22. Claims 7-11 and 19-
21 are withdrawn. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to using a flux guide in a voice coil motor disk
drive. Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary of the matter on appeal:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hitachi Global
Storage Technologies Netherlands B.V. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-001649
Application 12/944,689
1. ii~ voice=coil motor \'l1ith flux guide configured to reduce
vibrations of a head when accessing data in a disk drive, said
voice-coil motor comprising:
at least one voice-coil-motor magnet;
a voice coil disposed in proximity to a magnetic pole of
said voice-coil-motor magnet; and
at least one flux guide coupled only to an outer-most
peripheral portion of said voice coil and is not disposed on
straight line portions of said voice coil;
wherein said flux guide is configured to reduce vibrations
of said head when accessing data in said disk drive.
App. Br. 9 (Claims App.).
THE REJECTION
Claims 1---6, 12-14, 17, 18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (hereinafter "Kim") (US
8,134,808 B2; iss. March 13, 2012). Final Act. 2-3.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Kim does not teach the claim 1 limitation "at least
one flux guide coupled only to an outer-most peripheral portion of said voice
coil and is not disposed on straight line portions of said voice coil." App.
Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 1-3. According to Appellants, Kim uses a "flux guide on
the straight line portions of the voice coil motor." App. Br. 5 (citing Fig. 5,
"two straight side portions"). Appellants further argue Kim teaches away
because it "teach[ es] flux guides coupled with straight line portions of the
voice coil motor." App. Br. 5---6.
The Examiner finds, and we agree:
The Examiner respectfully points out that the flux guide
82 on the straight line portions 73 and 7 5 of the voice coil are
2
Appeal2014-001649
Application 12/944,689
not coupled to the outer=most peripheral portion of the voice
coil. Kim teaches in addition a flux guide 80 coupled to the
outer-most peripheral portion 77 of the voice coil (see figure 5 ),
therefore Kim teaches the claimed limitation.
Ans. 4 (emphasis added).
Appellants present no persuasive argument why the claims should be
limited to exclude the teaching of Kim, particularly Figure 5, in which a flux
guide is coupled to the outer-most peripheral portion of the voice coil and
this flux guide is not disposed on straight line portions of the voice coil.
Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
However, great care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of the
Specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d
1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
We are not persuaded that Kim teaches away because, as discussed
above, Kim teaches the disputed limitation. Moreover, Appellants present
no persuasive evidence that would discourage one of ordinary skill in the art
to follow Kim's teaching, discussed above. "A reference may be said to
teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant." In re Kubin, 561F.3d1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
We agree the Examiner presents articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings as required for obviousness. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 3-5. As
stated by the Court, the Examiner's obviousness rejection must be based on
3
Appeal2014-001649
Application 12/944,689
"' ... some articulated reasoning \'l1ith some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness.'" KSR Int 'l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)). The analysis need not, however, seek out precise teachings directed
to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ. Id.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 12 and 1 7 as these claims recite the disputed limitation
and are argued together with claim 1 (App. Br. 7). Dependent claims 2---6,
13, 14, 18, and 22 are not argued separately and, therefore, we sustain the
rejection of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 12-14, 17,
18, and 22.
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
4