Ex Parte SOHN et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2002

08947895 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2002)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JIN-SEUNG SOHN and DAE-SUNG RO
____________
Appeal No. 2000-1765
Application No. 08/947,895
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 and 24. Claims 2 through 22 and 25 through 153 have
been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-
elected species and subspecies.
The invention relates to a disk player having a self-
compensating dynamic balancer for restricting internal vibrations
generated due to an eccentric center of gravity of a disk, and a
turntable, a clamper, and a spindle motor incorporating the self-
2
Appeal No. 2000-1765
Application No. 08/947,895
compensating dynamic balancer. See Appellants' specification,
page 1, lines 3-13.
Appellants disclose that prior art does not take into
consideration the dampening of internal vibrations generated by
the rotation of the spindle motor due to an eccentric center of
gravity of the disk. See Appellants' specification, page 2,
lines 24-28. Appellants disclose that such an eccentric center
of gravity of the disk is caused by a discrepancy between the
rotational center of the disk and the center of gravity of the
disk due to errors in the manufacturing process of the disk. See
Appellants' specification, page 2, lines 27-28. Appellants
disclose that this causes the rotational shaft of the spindle
motor to exhibit an orbital revolution, which has serious effects
in the case of a high-speed disc player. See Appellants'
specification, page 3, lines 3-7.
Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 24 present in the
application are reproduced as follows:
1. A disk player comprising:
a deck base;
a deck plate elastically coupled to said deck base;
3
Appeal No. 2000-1765
Application No. 08/947,895
at least one buffering member interposed between said deck
base and said deck plate for protecting said deck plate from
external impacts;
a spindle motor having a rotational shaft and being mounted
to said deck plate for providing a rotational force to a disk;
a turntable mounted to said rotational shaft of said spindle
motor for accommodating the disk;
a clamper for holding the disk in place on said turntable;
an optical pickup installed at said deck plate to be capable
of moving across the disk; and

a self-compensating dynamic balancer mounted to at least one
among members which are rotated by the rotational force provided
by said spindle motor, the center of gravity of said self-
compensating dynamic balancer being located opposite to that of
said disk with respect to said rotational shaft of said spindle
motor by a centrifugal force generated during rotation of the
disk, thereby to compensate for vibrations due to an eccentric
center of gravity of said disk.
24. A disk player as claimed in claim 1, wherein said self-
compensating dynamic balancer is formed to incorporate said
turntable.
References
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Araki et al. (Araki) 62-24052 Feb. 2, 1987
(Japanese Patent)
4
Appeal No. 2000-1765
Application No. 08/947,895
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art of Figure
1 and Araki.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case. It
is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the artisan contained
in such teachings or suggestions. See In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d
989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appellants argue that Araki relates to an automatic
balancing device for a rotary body in an imbalanced state, such
as a rotary injection type metal powder manufacturing apparatus.
See Appeal Brief, page 9, lines 6-8. Appellants argue that Araki
does not relate to a disk player and there is no recognition of
compensating for vibrations due to an eccentric center of gravity
of a disk which is clamped in place on a turntable of a disk
5
Appeal No. 2000-1765
Application No. 08/947,895
player. See Appeal Brief, page 11, lines 12-15. Appellants
argue that Araki does not relate in particular to a self-
compensating dynamic balancer mounted to at least one among
members which are rotated by the rotational force provided by
said spindle motor, the center of gravity of said self-
compensating dynamic balancer being located opposite to that of
said disk with respect to said rotational shaft of said spindle
motor by a centrifugal force generated during rotation of the
disk, thereby to compensate for vibrations due to an eccentric
center of gravity of said disk, as recited in Appellants'
claim 1. See Appeal Brief, page 10, lines 9-16.
The Examiner argues that Araki teaches the use of a self-
compensating dynamic balancer for correcting the balance of a
rotary body when the rotary body exceeds a critical speed. See
Answer, page 4, lines 3-5. The Examiner argues that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of Appellants' invention to modify the disc player of Appellants'
admitted prior art with a self-compensating dynamic balancer as
taught by Araki so that the turntable and disc are balanced when
rotated at high speeds. See Answer page 4, lines 6-12.
On a close reading of Araki, it is revealed that Araki is
not concerned with the problem of internal vibrations generated
6
Appeal No. 2000-1765
Application No. 08/947,895
in a disk player due to an eccentric center of gravity of a disk,
which is the claimed invention of Appellants, but instead is
concerned with the problem of balancing an abrupt unbalance of a
rotational shaft during a high-speed rotation in rotary spray
type metal powder manufacturing apparatus. See Araki, page 3,
lines 25-26, and page 4, lines 1-2. In describing the problem
Araki seeks to solve, Araki discloses that in the metal powder
manufacturing apparatus, a part of a metallic piece cooled and
fixed to the upper surface of a disc installed at the upper end
of a perpendicular rotational shaft is dropped from the disc
during the manufacture of the metal powder. The dropping of the
metallic piece causes abrupt unbalance in the rotational shaft
during a high-speed rotation, likely causing damage to the
bearing supporting the rotational shaft and the rotor. See
Araki, page 2, lines 13-19 and 4-6.
Thus, Araki is not concerned with the problem of dampening
internal vibrations in a disc player generated by the rotation of
the spindle motor due to an eccentric center of gravity of the
disc. Araki does not solve problems caused when a disk with an
eccentric center of gravity caused by a discrepancy between the
rotational center of the disk and the center of gravity of the
disk due to errors in the manufacturing process of the disk is
7
Appeal No. 2000-1765
Application No. 08/947,895
played. See Appellants Specification, page 2, lines 24-28, and
page 3, lines 1-3.
Now we must consider the Examiner's argument that it would
have been obvious to modify Araki and Appellants' admitted prior
art to provide limitations claimed in claims 1 and 24. In this
regard, the Federal Circuit states that
[t]he mere fact that the prior art may be modified in
the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed.
Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

As discussed above, Araki is not concerned with the problem
that Appellants are solving. Araki is concerned with the problem
of balancing an abrupt unbalance of a rotational shaft during a
high-speed rotation in rotary spray type metal powder
manufacturing apparatus. See Araki, page 3, lines 25-26, and
page 4, lines 1-2. We find that even if Araki could be used to
modify Appellants' admitted prior art (see Appellants' Figure 1)
to add an automatic balancer to a disc player, there is no
suggestion in Araki to do such a modification. In fact, although
Araki relates to an automatic balancing device for a rotary body
of a metal powder manufacturing apparatus, Araki does not teach a
modification of a disk player to include an automatic balancing
8
Appeal No. 2000-1765
Application No. 08/947,895
device. The Examiner argues that "one looking to solve the
problem of unbalanced disks that are rotated at high speeds in
disk players would look to see how prior art high speed spindle
motors are kept in balance." See Answer, page 5, lines 13-15.
However, this amounts to nothing more than the Examiner using
hindsight and is a statement of the very objective of the
Appellants' invention.
Our reviewing court has held that the Examiner must explain
the reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to select the references and to combine them to
render the claimed invention obvious. In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The examiner can
satisfy the burden of showing obviousness of the combination
"only by showing some objective teaching in the prior art or that
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art
would lead that individual to combine the relevant teachings of
the references." In re Lee quoting In re Fritch.
Since there is no evidence in the record that the prior art
suggested the desirability of combining Araki's invention with
Appellants' admitted prior art, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Dependent claim 24 on appeal
9
Appeal No. 2000-1765
Application No. 08/947,895
also contains the above limitations discussed in regard to claim
1 and thereby, we will not sustain the rejection as to these
claims.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is
reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF/LBG
10
Appeal No. 2000-1765
Application No. 08/947,895
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3202
Lesley
Appeal No. 2000-1765
Application No. 08/947,895
APJ FLEMING
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ THOMAS
DECISION: REVERSED

Prepared: July 31, 2003
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU 2600
PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT