Ex Parte Radich

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2012

10607967 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2012)

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.
10/607,967 06/27/2003 William M. Radich S104.12-0037/STL 11305 3060
27365 7590 10/24/2012
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC
C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3244
EXAMINER
CHAUDRY, MUJTABA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2112
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2012 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 WILLIAM M. RADICH

Appeal 2012-0089791
Application 10/607,967
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, THU A. DANG, and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Seagate Technology, LLC. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2012-008979
Application 10/607,967

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-18, 21-23, and 27. Claims 4, 9,
14, 19, 20, 24-26, and 28-30 have been canceled. (App. Br. 2.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and system for computing branch metric
values in a data detector to thereby reduce the number of parameters to be
estimated within a read channel. (Spec. 2, ll.17-21.) In particular, after
programming the data detector with a statistical model having a transition
jitter variables, the model is used to process signal samples received from
the read channel to calculate branch metric values corresponding thereto.
The statistical model includes an inverse weighing term having a value
based on the number of transitions in the signal samples. (Id. at ll. 22-27, Id.
at 7, ll. 12-26.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. Claim 1 reads as
follows:
1. A method of determining branch metric values in a detector, the
method comprising:
(a) programming the detector with a statistical model
having a transition jitter variable that represents, for each data
symbol, a jitter or shift in discrete time with respect to a
Appeal 2012-008979
Application 10/607,967

3
sampled symbol rate and that relates transition jitter to signal
sample noise in an amplitude domain;
(b) receiving a sequence of time variant signal samples;
and
(c) computing, by control circuitry, the branch metric
values as a function of transition jitter statistics corresponding
to the sequence of time variant signal samples based on the
statistical model,
wherein computing the branch metric values includes
employing an inverse weighting term that has a value that is
based on a number of transitions in the sequence of time variant
signal samples, and wherein the inverse weighting term is
calculated based on the statistical model.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Kavcic US 6,438,180 B1 Aug. 2, 2002
Jeon US 6,728,928 B2 Apr. 27, 2004
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-18, 21-23, and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kavcic and
Jeon.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4-9.
Representative Claim 1
Appeal 2012-008979
Application 10/607,967

4
Dispositive Issue: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Kavcic and Jeon teaches or suggests
statistical model including an inverse weighing term that has a value based
on a number of transitions in a received sequence of signal samples to
thereby calculate the branch metric values corresponding thereto, as recited
in claim 1?
Appellant argues that the combination of Kavcic and Jeon does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 6-7.)
In particular, Appellant argues that while Jeon discloses “scaling as moving
a boundary between first and second decode values by an additive amount,”
the reference does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations, and thereby
does not cure the deficiencies of Kavcic. (Id. at 7.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Kavcic’s discloses a statistical
model including an inverse of a covariance matrix for performing branch
metric calculations based on weights. (Ans. 5-7, 13-15.) The Examiner
further finds that Jeon’s disclosure of a Viterbi detector having a transition
jitter variable that utilizes the number of transitions in a signal sample to
calculate branch metric values in a detector complements Kavcic’s
disclosure to teach the disputed limitations. (Id.)
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with, and adopt herein
the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate conclusion of
obviousness regarding claim 1. We note at the outset that Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief failed to address the specific findings made
by the Examiner in the Final Rejection, which are reproduced at pages 5-7 of
Appeal 2012-008979
Application 10/607,967

5
the Answer, and incorporated herein by reference. As set forth in the
Answer, the Examiner relies upon the combination of the afore-cited
teachings of Kavcic (col. 3, ll. 47-67, col. 8, ll. 30-67) and Jeon (col. 1, l. 62-
col. 2, l. 16, col. 11, ll. 4-6) to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
against the claim. However, at pages 6-7 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant only
addressed Kavcic (col. 7, ll. 24-32) and Jeon’s abstract instead of the
specific portions of the references upon which Examiner relied upon in the
rejection. In our view, Appellant’s analysis of portions of the references not
relied upon in the rejection is not responsive to the Examiner’s specific
findings made in the Answer.
Further, we find untimely Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief
that the teachings of Kavcic and Jeon are not properly combinable for lack
of sufficient motivation. (Reply Br. 1-5.) We note that these new arguments
were raised by Appellant for the first time in the Reply Brief, and they are
not in response to a new issue brought up by the Examiner in the Answer.
We therefore find these new arguments unavailing.2 Appellant is reminded
that:
The purpose of a reply brief is to ensure the Appellant the
opportunity to have the last word on an issue raised by the Examiner.
The reply brief enables the Appellant to address any new grounds of
rejection the Examiner may have raised in the answer, or to address
changes or developments in the law that may have occurred after the

2 “[I]t is inappropriate for appellants to discuss in their reply brief matters
not raised in … the principal brief[ ]. Reply briefs are to be used to reply to
matter[s] raised in the brief of the appellee.” Kaufman Co. v. Lantech, Inc.,
807 F.2d 970, 973 n.* (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2012-008979
Application 10/607,967

6
principal brief was filed. The reply brief is not an opportunity to
make arguments that could have been made during prosecution, but
were not. Nor is the reply brief an opportunity to make arguments
that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the
Examiner’s rejections, but were not.
Giving cognizance to belated arguments in a reply would vitiate
the force of the requirement in Board Rule 37(c)(1)(vii) that “[a]ny
arguments or authorities not included in the brief . . . will be refused
consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown.” The
reference in that section to the “reply brief filed pursuant to § 41.41”
does not create a right for the Appellant to raise an argument in the
reply brief that could have been raised in the principal brief but was
not. Rather, that reference merely puts Appellants on notice that
arguments that could be made in the reply brief, but are not, are
waived.
See Ex Parte Borden IV, Appeal 2008-004312, p. 4. (Jan. 7, 2010)
(informative.)
We have previously held that "[i]f an appellant fails to present
arguments on a particular issue … the Board will not, as a general matter,
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citations
omitted). Consequently, because Appellant’s arguments are ineffective in
demonstrating error in the Examiner’s prima facie case to establish the
patentability of the claims on appeal, we find Appellant has failed to rebut
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 with any persuasive analysis. See Ex
parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, WL 2477843 slip op. at 7-8 (BPAI Aug.
10, 2009) (informative.)
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find Appellant has not
sustained the requisite burden on appeal of providing arguments or evidence
Appeal 2012-008979
Application 10/607,967

7
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. It
therefore follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Kavcic and Jeon renders claim 1
unpatentable.
Regarding claims 11 and 27, Appellant merely alleges that the
combination of Kavcic and Jeon does not teach the limitations recited in
those claims. (App. Br. 7-9.) Appellant is reminded that merely repeating
what the claims recite, and making a general allegation of patentability does
not constitute a persuasive argument. See Ex parte Belinne, at 7-8.
Regarding claim 23, we note that Appellant’s arguments also suffer of
the aforementioned deficiencies outlined in our discussion of claim 1.
Further, the Examiner has rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence each
argument separately raised by Appellant in the Brief regarding the cited
claims. (Ans. 17-18). We consequently adopt the Examiner’s findings,
which incorporate herein by reference. Because these findings have not been
persuasively rebutted by Appellant, we find that Appellant has not shown
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.
Claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 13, 15-18, 21, and 22 (not argued
separately) fall with claims 1 and/or 11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-18,
21-23, and 27 as set forth above.
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).
Appeal 2012-008979
Application 10/607,967

8

AFFIRMED

tj