Ex Parte Sasaki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 16, 2010

11209780 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte YOSHIYUKI SASAKI
________________

Appeal 2009-008267
Application 11/209,780
Technology Center 2100
________________

Decided: February 16, 2010
________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-008267
Application 11/209,780

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 24-45. Claims 1-23 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing of this appeal was
conducted on February 4, 2010.
We affirm.

II. INVENTION
The instant invention discloses:
A data storage apparatus, including a controller that
formats a rewritable recording medium in the background,
interrupts the background formatting when a host computer
requests to store data in the rewritable recording medium, stores
the data in the rewritable recording medium after interrupting
the background formatting, revises control information stored
in a predetermined region of the rewritable recording medium
after storing the data, and resumes the background formatting
after revising the control information. The data storage
apparatus according[ly] can revise control information
indicating the address up to which the background formatting
has been performed and the address of an unformatted
recording region in which user data have been recorded, for
example, at an appropriate timing during the background
formatting.

(Spec. 37, Abst., Fig 1-3, and 6)

III. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
24. An information storage system, comprising:
a data storage device having a data recording unit
configured to record data on a rewritable medium; and
a host configured to cause the data storage device to
record data on the medium,
Appeal 2009-008267
Application 11/209,780

3
wherein while the data storage device is formatting the
medium, and when the host requests the data storage device to
record user data on the medium, the data storage device:
interrupts the formatting of the medium in response to the
request from the host, records the user data on the medium after
the interruption of the formatting, records data recording state
information in a predetermined area of the medium after the
recording of the user data, and resumes the formatting of the
medium after the recording of the data recording state
information.

IV. PRIOR ART AND EXAMINER’S REJECTION
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
anticipation:
Ijtsma 6,606,285 B1 Aug. 12, 2003
(filed Sep. 25, 2000)

Claims 24-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Ijtsma.

V. CLAIM GROUPINGS
Appellant’s arguments in the Brief argue independent claim 24 as
representative of the subject matter of independent claims 24 and 35.
Independent claim 31 is considered representative of the subject matter of
independent claims 31 and 42. No dependent claim is argued in the
principal Brief on appeal.

Appeal 2009-008267
Application 11/209,780

4
VI. ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Ijtsma
anticipates the subject matter of the wherein clauses of representative
independent claims 24 and 31 on appeal?

VII. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant discusses the admitted prior art at Specification page 2
line 10 through page 5, line 4. The fact that formatting includes recording
dummy data before storing actual user data is known in the art. One
approach is detailed where the formatting occurs only for a portion of the
disc so that the user may store data in or retrieve data from the disc even if
the optical disc has not been completely formatted. As set forth at the
bottom of Specification page 3, it is known that if the user requests a host
computer to store data or retrieve data during the time in which background
formatting occurs, the disc drive background formatting is interrupted such
that data may be stored or retrieved from the disc. Additionally,
It is necessary to record which portion of the optical disk
has been formatted and in which portion of the optical disk data
have been stored so that the optical disk drive can randomly
store data in any region of the optical disk or eject the optical
disk while the optical disk is being formatted in the
background.

(Spec. 4, ll. 9-15). This tracking information, called formatting disc control
bloc (FDCB) information, is recorded in the “lead in” region of the disc.
This data includes, as discussed beginning at line 20 of page 4, recording
state information indicating whether the disc is not formatted, is being
formatted, or has been formatted with address information indicating the
Appeal 2009-008267
Application 11/209,780

5
address of the formatted region of the disc, and bitmap information
indicating whether a region is recorded or not recorded. Significantly,
When a partially formatted optical disk is inserted, the
optical disk drive can resume background formatting and store
dummy data only in the unrecorded region by referring to the
FDCB.

(Spec. 5, ll. 1-4).
2. As noted by the Examiner, Figure 17 of Ijtsma shows a recording
apparatus 1 with various control elements within it as well as a separate
computer 12 which is characterized by the Examiner as being the host of the
claims on appeal. The discussion of this figure at column 13 indicates that
the disc drive apparatus 1 itself may perform some functions in addition to
those commanded by the host or that the host may perform all of them, such
as formatting the disc and processing eject requests.
Consistent with the disc standards in the art that are noted with respect
to Figure 1 beginning at column 3, Figure 2 shows within the so-called lead-
in area a sentinel packet portion (STL) and a main defect table (MDT), and
shows a defect management area as well as a general purpose area. Figure 6
shows the current MDT which is a reflection of revised previous versions
thereof. Correspondingly, Figure 7 shows a current SDT revising previously
written but defective data. The discussion associated with Figure 5
beginning at the middle of column 5 indicates that the defect management
teachings of this reference relate to updating, replacing, overriding or
otherwise providing new MDT data and SDT data. Moreover it is stated that
these defect tables are defined beginning at the bottom of column 5 through
the top of column 6 where it is further taught:

Appeal 2009-008267
Application 11/209,780

6
This TDT [Temporary Defect Table] is created instead of the
SDT, when an eject is requested before the Back-ground
Formatting process has been finished, which will be discussed
later.

As noted earlier, a discussion beginning at column 3 relates to prior
art approaches to formatting information including background formatting
capabilities that appear to be known in the art. It is further stated at column
4, lines 31-46:
Generally the end-user of the system likes to have the disc
ready for use within seconds after it has been inserted into the
drive. A blank disc however has to be formatted before all it’s
capabilities can be exploited fully. Because the normal
formatting process takes too much time, a background
formatting procedure will be defined that initializes the disc
with a minimum amount of information, after which it is
available for recording, and then proceeds with the formatting
during the time intervals when the drive is idle. The
background formatting only defines the physical formatting of
the disc, which is system independent. A fully formatted disc is
always in a ROM-compatible state. An eject command can be
executed without delay. When an eject is requested before the
disc has been fully formatted, a quick finishing process shall be
executed to make the disk ROM-compatible before it leaves the
recorder.

The details of the initialization functions are set forth at column 9
beginning at line 19 through various discussions of prior art and background
formatting to which the Examiner heavily relies upon in later teachings.

Appeal 2009-008267
Application 11/209,780

7
VIII. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over
the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope
of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications
not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim
must then be compared with the prior art.

IX. ANALYSIS
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions will be limited to the
following points of emphasis.
The lengthy discussion in Finding of Fact 2 for what is known in the
art and known as a part of the defect management contribution to the art in
Ijtsma is taught in this reference in earlier columns than relied upon and
mentioned by the Examiner and Appellant. They reflect a state of the art
that is consistent with what Appellant has recognized to be in the admitted
prior art we referred to in Finding of Fact 1. When taken as a whole, the
concept of interrupting the formatting operation to perform data operations
was known in the art as evidenced by both Appellant’s admitted prior art as
Appeal 2009-008267
Application 11/209,780

8
well as the significant teachings we noted in Finding of Fact 2. The
discussion we reproduced earlier at column 4 in Finding of Fact 2 indicates
that the initializing process includes the initial formatting which is subject to
being interrupted by read/record operations. Upon the completion of them,
the formatting operation then proceeds or resumes “during the time intervals
when the drive is idle.” This column 4 quote in our Finding of Fact 2 also
indicates at the end of it that once an eject command is requested before the
disc has been fully formatted, certain quick finishing processes are executed
before the disc is ejected. An artisan understanding Appellant’s admitted
prior art as well as the generalized formatting requirements according to the
known standards in the art would permit a partially formatted, partially
read/written disc to be ejected and even reinserted to finish or complete the
formatting process. The quoted material from the top of column 6 as well as
these latter teachings at column 4 relating to a quick finishing process or
processes after an eject function has been requested are not regarded as
formatting functionalities by themselves but may be regarded as comprising
the broadly claimed “data recording state information.”
Formatting information according to the admitted prior art and the
formatting information in Ijtsma are consistent with each other, both of
which are recited apparently in the claims on appeal as the broadly recited
“data recording state information.” The artisan would understand that this
information is updated or the writing of such formatting information occurs
after an eject function if the disk is actually ejected and then reinserted, as
well as after a read/write operation is requested without an eject request.
Thus, to the extent page 10 of the principal Brief and the Reply Brief address
the feature of representative independent claim 24 on appeal of recording the
Appeal 2009-008267
Application 11/209,780

9
state information “after” the recording of the user data, both the Appellant’s
admitted prior art as well as Ijtsma teach this concept. This occurs “after” in
place and time.
Further as to representative independent claim 24 on appeal, page 4 of
the Reply Brief appears to argue that the claim requires a host computer to
provide user data. Such is not the case, however, since the terms “host
computer” are not recited in independent claim 24. The claim merely recites
a broadly defined “host.” Our discussion in the early portion of Finding of
Fact 2 relating to Ijtsma’s Figure 17 indicates that both Ijtsma’s device 1 and
computer 12 may perform separate functionalities or the host can perform
them all. The artisan would understand from the admitted prior as well as
from the teachings of Ijtsma individually that a read/write command and
even an eject command proceed from the computer 12 in Ijtsma to the extent
it relates to any feature recited in representative independent claim 24 on
appeal.
Appellant’s arguments with respect representative independent claim
31 on appeal appear to focus upon the fact that no formatting occurs “after”
an ejection occurs with respect to the medium at the end of this claim, which
reflects apparently the functionality depicted the bottom of Appellant’s
disclosed flow-chart Figure 6. The artisan would readily understand that no
formatting can occur once an ejection occurs of the actual medium itself.
Moreover, the actual teachings of Ijtsma we have outlined earlier in Finding
of Fact 2 indicate that formatting may be resumed in an unrecorded area
between the area in which data’s actually been stored by the user, to the
extent recited in the last two lines of representative independent claim 31 on
appeal. We recognize that, as pointed out on page 5 of the Reply Brief that
Appeal 2009-008267
Application 11/209,780

10
the so-called lead-out region must be recorded after recording data, this lead
out information is not considered to be formatting information to the extent
known in the art and recited in the claims on appeal.

X. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Ijtsma
anticipates the subject matter of all claims on appeal, claims 24-45. All
claims on appeal are unpatentable.

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

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 EYE STREET NW
Washington, DC 20006-5403