Ex Parte Roajanasiri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2017

12265313 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2017)

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.
12/265,313 11/05/2008 REANGROAJ ROAJANASIRI T3601 1905
35219 7590 06/27/2017
WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION
IP LAW DEPARTMENT
3355 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92612
EXAMINER
RIVERA, JOSHEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2017 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):
Patent. Reporting @ wdc. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REANGROAJ ROAJANASIRI and
WARANYA THIRAPUTTIPONG
Appeal 2017-000773
Application 12/265,313
Technology Center 1700
Before MARK NAGUMO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6 and 15—17 under 35 U.S.C. §
1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed November 5, 2008, the
Decision on Appeal (Dec.) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
dated January 6, 2016, Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed
December 28, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) dated July 15, 2016.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Western Digital
Technologies, Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-000773
Application 12/265,313
103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA3 in view of Estelle.4 We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a process for dispensing adhesive dots, the
process including an adhesive monitoring and control system that measures
a characteristic for each of the dots, determining an average for the measured
characteristics, determining a statistical dispersion for the measured
characteristics, comparing the average to a function of a reference
characteristic value and the statistical dispersion, and modifying dispensing
of a dot based in part on the comparison. Spec. 2:16—27.
Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
The limitation at issue is italicized.
1. A method of manufacturing disk drives, the method
comprising:
a first dispensing step for dispensing a plurality of
adhesive dots onto a plurality of disk drive suspensions;
a measuring step for measuring a characteristic for each
of the plurality of adhesive dots;
a first determining step for determining an average for
the measured characteristics of the plurality of adhesive dots;
a second determining step for determining a statistical
dispersion for the measured characteristics of the plurality of
adhesive dots;
a third determining step for determining a degree to
3 Appellants’ admitted prior art, Fig. 1, and associated text, Spec. 1:16—25
(AAPA).
4 Estelle et al., US 2005/0244569 Al, published November 3, 2005
(“Estelle”).
2
Appeal 2017-000773
Application 12/265,313
which a parameter is changed relative to how much the
average exceeds a reference plus a limit, where the limit is
based on the statistical dispersion;
a second dispensing step for dispensing the subsequent
adhesive dot onto a subsequent disk drive suspension based at
least in part on the parameter change.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue independent claim 1 only, and do not otherwise
argue the remaining claims separately. Accordingly, we limit our discussion
below to claim 1 and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
The dispositive issue before us in this appeal is whether Appellants
have identified reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Estelle teaches
a step for determining a degree to which a parameter is changed relative to
how much the average exceeds a reference plus a limit, where the limit is
based on the statistical dispersion. We answer this question in the negative,
and will sustain the rejection based on the findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and rebuttal to argument presented by the Examiner in the Answer. We
add the following for emphasis.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection relies on the finding that
Estelle teaches a method for controlling dispensing of adhesive drops or
dots 76 including, inter alia, a step of determining a degree of change to be
made to a physical parameter of a subsequent adhesive dot based on the
comparison of an average to a reference value adjusted by the statistical
dispersion. Ans. 3^4. The Examiner further finds Estelle teaches that if the
average value is greater than a desired value, then the system changes the
3
Appeal 2017-000773
Application 12/265,313
target value to the new value based on the degree to which a parameter is
changed relative to how much the average exceeds the desired value. Id.
at 4.
Appellants initially argue that PTAB’s prior Decision on Appeal in
this application implicitly indicated that Estelle fails to teach ‘“a third
determining step for determining a degree to which a parameter is changed
relative to how much the average exceeds a reference plus a limit, where the
limit is based on the statistical dispersion’ as recited in claim 1.” Br. 3
(emphasis added by Appellants). We disagree. Appellants misapprehend
our prior Decision, which merely states that the version of claim 1 at issue
therein recited “a step for determining a parameter change by comparing the
average to a reference value adjusted by the statistical dispersion.” Dec. 5.
We further stated in our prior Decision that “[t]his recitation [did] not
require that the degree to which the pressure is changed (decreased) is
determined by how much the average exceeds the reference plus the limit as
shown in Appellants’ Figure 6A.” Id. Thus, as the Examiner correctly notes
(Br. 6), our prior Decision merely stated that Appellants’ interpretation of
the version of claim 1 at issue in the prior Decision was incorrect. While we
stated that the version of claim 1 at issue in the prior Decision is broader in
scope than the process shown in Figure 6A, we neither expressly nor
implicitly indicated that Estelle fails to teach the limitation currently at issue
in this appeal. Indeed, as the Examiner correctly notes (id.), our prior
Decision took no position with regard to whether the prior art taught or
suggested the current limitation at issue.
Appellants further argue that Estelle fails to teach a step of
determining the degree to which a parameter is changed relative to how
4
Appeal 2017-000773
Application 12/265,313
much the average exceeds a reference plus a limit. Br. 3^4. Appellants
assert that an example of this limitation is shown in Figure 6 A wherein, if
the average of the measured parameter exceeds a reference plus half the
standard deviation (Std*0.5), the pressure is decreased, and if the same
average exceeds the reference plus (Std*2), the pressure is again decreased,
and if the same average exceeds the reference plus (Std*3), the pressure is
again decreased. Id. at 3. Appellants urge, therefore, that in this example,
the degree to which the parameter is changed depends on how much the
average exceeds a reference plus a limit. Id. at 3^4.
Here again, we note that Appellants’ claim 1 does not recite a method
that is limited to the sequence of steps as depicted in Appellants’ Figure 6A.
As Appellants note, Figure 6A represents one example in which the degree
to which the parameter is changed depends on how much the average
exceeds a reference plus a limit. Appellants achieve this result by
sequentially comparing the average to a reference plus a limit that increases
each step, i.e., the limit is one half of Std in the first step, twice Std in the
second step, and thrice Std in the third step. Therefore, if the average is
greater than the reference plus one half of Std, but less than the reference
plus twice Std, then the parameter is decreased only once; if the average is
greater than twice, but less than thrice, Std, then the parameter is decreased
twice; and if the average is greater than thrice Std, then the parameter is
decreased thrice.
Unlike the process of Figure 6A, claim 1 broadly requires a step of
determining the degree to which the parameter is changed relative to how
much the average exceeds a reference plus a limit, where the limit is based
5
Appeal 2017-000773
Application 12/265,313
on the statistical dispersion. Claim 1 does not require multiple sequential
steps of comparing the average to a reference plus a limit.
As Appellants note (Br. 4), Estelle teaches adjusting a parameter
relative to how much the average exceeds a target or reference value.
Estelle 1 60. However, Estelle further teaches that such an adjustment
occurs when the average is not within acceptable limits, thereby indicating
that adjustment is not performed when the average is within acceptable
limits. Id. (“Where the determined mean does not match within acceptable
limits a position or other measured characteristic specified by an application
. . . ”.) Thus, Estelle necessarily provides a limit in addition to a reference or
target over which the average is compared to determine the degree of change
in the parameter. See Ans. 7—8. In addition, Estelle teaches that this limit is
determined by a distribution limit, which indicates that the limit is based on
the statistical dispersion. Id. at 115 (“Where the automatically determined
mean or other reference location deviates from a target position by an
unacceptable amount defined by a distribution limit. . .”) Estelle further
teaches that determining the standard deviation accommodates normal
variations inherent in a system while flagging abnormal variation. Id. at
122. Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s finding that Estelle teaches a step for determining the degree to
which a parameter is changed relative to how much the average exceeds a
reference or target plus a limit, where the limit is based on the statistical
dispersion.
6
Appeal 2017-000773
Application 12/265,313
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—6 and 15—17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA in view of Estelle 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).
AFFIRMED
7