Ex Parte Radich

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 11, 2010

10607967 (B.P.A.I. May. 11, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM M. RADICH
____________________

Appeal 2009-0014681
Application 10/607,967
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: May 11, 2010
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAY P. LUCAS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed on June 27, 2003. The real party in interest is Seagate Technology,
LLC. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2009-001468
Application 10/607,967

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
As shown in Figures 1 through 3, Appellant invented a method for
reducing media noise in a read channel of a disc drive. (Spec. 1, ll. 4-6, and
2, ll. 17-27.) In particular, upon receiving variant time signal samples from
a read head (110) in the read channel (200), a Viterbi-like detector (210) in
the read channel (200) uses transition jitter statistics corresponding to the
received time samples to compute branch metric values in such a way to
reduce the number of associated parameters to be estimated in the detector
(210). (Spec. 4, ll. 14-19, and 6, ll. 18-27.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A method of determining branch metric values in a
detector, the method comprising:

(a) receiving time variant signal samples; and

(b) computing the branch metric values as a function of
transition jitter statistics

corresponding to the signal samples.

Appeal 2009-001468
Application 10/607,967

3
Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Kavcic 6,438,180 B1 Aug. 20, 2002

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kavcic.
2. Claims 3 through 6, 9, 10, 13 through 16, and 19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kavcic.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that Kavcic teaches computing branch metric
values based on noise statistics, as opposed to using transition jitter
statistics, as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 4, Reply Br. 1-2.) According to
Appellant, Kavcic’s noise statistics uses a Gauss-Markov approximation of
channel noise that uses a sampled waveform in the amplitude domain to
produce transitions that look like signal amplitude variations, whereas the
claimed transition jitter statistics is a component of media noise, and
depends upon positions of data transitions. (Reply Br. 1.)
Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner finds that Kavcic’s detector while reading data from the
magnetic medium is likely to pick up some noise (i.e. media noise), which
can be reduced by using the transition positions of the data samples being
read. (Ans. 9-11.)
Appeal 2009-001468
Application 10/607,967

4
II. ISSUE
Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Kavcic teaches computing branch metric values based on transition jitter
statistics, as recited in independent claim 1?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Kavcic
1. As shown in Figure 1, Kavcic discloses a magnetic recording
system (10) having a read head (22) that picks up variations in the magnetic
flux stored on a magnetic medium (16). The read head (22) then provides a
stream of data retrieved from the medium (16) to a detector circuit (26),
which discards noise from the received data. (Col. 3, ll. 21-37.)
2. As shown in Figure 2, the detector circuit (26) applies selected
metric functions to the varying time signal samples received from the read
head (22) in order to determine branch metric values. (Col. 3, ll. 34-36.) In
particular, the detector circuit uses a Viterbi-like detector (30) that feeds
delayed signal samples and detector decisions into a noise statistics tracker
circuit (34) such that previously generated metric values are fed back into a
metric computation update circuit (36). (Col. 3, ll. 46-61.)
3. As depicted in Figure 3, Kavcic discloses that each generated
metric value is obtained as a function of the position of each signal sample
Appeal 2009-001468
Application 10/607,967

5
transition, which is dependent upon the nature of the media noise in the
magnetic medium. (Col. 4, ll. 15-42.)

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted)).
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at
issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc.,
190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). “In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to
exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is
anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the
prior art.” Id. (citation omitted).
Obviousness
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under
§ 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998))
(citation omitted).

Appeal 2009-001468
Application 10/607,967

6
V. CLAIM GROUPING
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 1 through 20 as a group.
Claim 1 is representative. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii),
we consider claims 2-20 as standing or falling with claim 1.

VI. ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection
Independent claim 1 requires, in relevant part, computing branch
metric values as a function of transition jitter statistics corresponding to
received time variant signal samples. (App. Br. 7, Claims App’x.)
We first consider the scope and meaning of the expression “transition
jitter” which must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with Appellant’s disclosure, as explained in In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048
(Fed. Cir. 1997):
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant's specification.

Id. at 1054. See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating
that “claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow.”). Appellant’s Specification states that “Transition jitter is a
relatively dominant component of media noise and is dependent upon
positions of data transition.” (Spec. 18, ll. 26-27) (emphasis added.)
Appeal 2009-001468
Application 10/607,967

7
Our reviewing court further states, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim
term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
As noted above, the Specification explicitly defines the expression
“transition jitter” as claimed. Consistent with this definition, we broadly but
reasonably construe the disputed claim limitation in this appeal as
computing branch metric values using statistics information pertaining to
noise in the recording medium (media noise), wherein the statistics
information is further indicative of the transition position of each sample
read from the recording medium.
As set forth in the Findings of Fact section, supra., Kavcic discloses a
Viterbi-like detector circuit that, upon receiving variant signal data including
media noise from a magnetic medium, computes branch metric values using
a noise statistic tracker circuit and a metric computation update circuit. (FF
2.) Further, Kavcic discloses that each branch metric value is obtained as a
function of the transition position of each received varying signal sample,
and is dependent from the media noise included in the signal. (FF. 3.)
Consistent with our interpretation above, we find that Kavcic’s computation
of the branch metric values is achieved based on jitter transition statistics. It
follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Kavcic anticipates claim 1.
Obviousness Rejection
Appellant reiterates the same arguments argument offered against the
anticipation rejection to rebut the obviousness rejection of claims 3-6, 9, 10,
Appeal 2009-001468
Application 10/607,967

8
13-16, and 19. (App. Br. 5-6.) We have already addressed those arguments
in our discussion of claim 1 above, and we found them unpersuasive.
Consequently, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s conclusion
that claims 3 through 6, 9, 10, 13 through 16, and 19 are unpatentable over
Kavcic.

VII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 20 as being anticipated by
Kavcic under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
2. Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 3 through 6, 9, 10, 13 through 16, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kavcic.

VIII. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 20.

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) (2009).

AFFIRMED

Nhl

Appeal 2009-001468
Application 10/607,967

9
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC
C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402-3244