Ex parte Timmermans

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 1999

08226225 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 1999)

Application for patent filed April 11, 1994. According1
to appellant, this application is a continuation of Serial No.
07/856,216, filed June 30, 1992, now abandoned.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOZEF M. K. TIMMERMANS
_____________
Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,2251
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, MARTIN, and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner's final rejection of claims 29, 30, 36, 44,
Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
- 2 -
and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and of claims 30-35, 37-43,
45, 46, and 48-53 under § 103. We affirm.
The invention
The invention relates to the format for storing a main
data file, such as image data, and a control data file, such
as synchronizing information, on a record carrier, such as a
compact disk. More particularly, the claims are directed to
the format of the control data file. As shown in appellant's
Figure 15, every 8-bit group 150 representing control data is
recorded twice in succession to form a packet 151 (Spec. at
24, lines 10-16). This permits a slower computer to recover
the control data (Spec. at 24, lines 15-18).
The claims
Claim 29, which is representative, reads as follows:
29. A record carrier for storing data for
retrieval, said record carrier having a recorded
data format, comprising:
a) a main data file for storing main data, and
b) a control data file for storing control data
comprising a plurality of packets each consisting of
n identical control data bit groups, where n is an
integer equal to at least 2, for use to control the
retrieval of said main data.
Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
- 3 -
The references and rejections
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Sugita et al. (Sugita) 4,796,223 Jan. 3, 1989
Souma 5,200,944 Apr. 6, 1993
Claims 29, 30, 36, 44, and 47 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sugita.
Claims 30-35, 37-43, 45, 46, and 48-53 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sugita in view of
Souma.
Appellant's Grouping of the claims
Appellant's brief (at 5-6) divides the claims into the
following three groups for purposes of argument:
Group A: Claims 29, 30, 36, 44, and 47.
Group B: Claims 30-35, 37-43, 45, 46, and 48-53.
Group C: Claims 34, 35, 37, 38, 45, and 53.
We note that some claims appear in more than one group.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
Sugita discloses a system that allows a personal computer
to run a program stored on a video tape recorder (abstract).
The tape (Fig. 1) includes computer programs P , P , P , etc.,1 2 3
adjacent to video sources" S , S , S , etc., which are grouped1 2 3
Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
- 4 -
(e.g., as S , S , S ) according to the teaching level of the1-0 1-1 1-2
students (col. 2, lines 33-39). As shown in Figure 3,
recording medium consists of video tape 1 having recording
tracks 15 with respective track addresses 16 (col. 3, lines 3-
8). Figure 5 shows the recording format for various fields
(col. 3, lines 59-60), each of which is recorded in a
respective track.
The track address, which is recorded in horizontal lines 12-14
of each track (col. 3, lines 59-65), consists of 21 bits and
is sufficient to address tracks of a video tapes of about 10
hours in length (col. 4, lines 2-5). Each 128-byte segment of
program code is recorded during horizontal lines 64-191 of in
three adjacent fields (col. 4, lines 61-62). This is also
depicted by Figure 6, wherein a "program block" P (apparentlyn
corresponding one of the programs P to P of Figure 1)1 3
includes a plurality of program segments P -P , each of which1 m
is recorded in three adjacent tracks identified as 00, 01, and
02 (col. 5, lines 7-18). Referring to Figure 5, these track
identification codes 00, 01, and 02 are recorded during
horizontal line 58 (col. 4, line 48-52). Turning now to
Figure 7, identical copies P ' and P " of program block P aren n n
Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
January 11, 1994, Office action (paper No. 9), at 5),2
incorporated by reference into final Office action at 2.
Although not stated in the § 102(b) rejection in the3
final Office action or the Answer, the examiner also appears
to be reading the claimed "main data" onto the video source
data, a point which appellant does not dispute.
- 5 -
recorded in adjacent areas of the tape (col. 5, lines 34-36).
The examiner contends that claim 29 is anticipated by this
duplication of program blocks, reading the claimed "packet[]2
. . . consisting of n identical control data bit groups" on
the identical program data in each of the program blocks P ,n
P ', and P ". In responding to the rejection, appellantn n 3
addresses not only this program block duplication but also the
program code duplication depicted by Figures 5 and 6, wherein
the same 128-byte program code is recorded in three adjacent
tracks or fields. We will address this matter first.
Appellant argues that the three tracks cannot be considered to
be a "packet[] . . . consisting of n identical control data
bit groups" (our emphasis), as recited in claim 27, because
"these three tracks consist of three identical bit groups plus
three non-identical identifier codes [00, 01, and 02]" (Brief
at 6-7). This argument is unconvincing because it incorrectly
Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
Final Office action at 2-3; Answer at 7.4
- 6 -
equates the term "control data bit groups" to all of the data
recorded in a track or field. As the examiner correctly
notes, while the claim requires that each "packet" consist of4
n identical control data bit groups, the presence of the
"comprising" term in paragraph b) permits the claimed "control
data file" to include other data, such as address data, in
addition to the claimed "plurality of packets." Thus, we are
of the opinion that the claim is anticipated when the term
"control data bit group" is read on the 128 bytes of program
code which is stored in horizontal lines 64-191 of each of the
three adjacent tracks or fields, even though those tracks or
fields also include track address data in horizontal lines 12-
14 and 00, 01, 02 address data in horizontal line 58. For the
same reasons, the claim is also anticipated by the duplication
of program blocks depicted by Figure 7 when the term "control
data bit group" is read on only the identical program data
contained in each block P , P ', and P ". Consequently, then n n
rejection of claim 29 under § 102(b) for anticipation by
Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
- 7 -
Sugita is affirmed, as is the § 102(b) rejection of claims 30,
36, 44, and 47, the remaining claims in Group A.
We note that although claim 30 is also included in Group
B, the argument made there is not responsive to the § 102(b)
rejection of that claim. Claim 30, which was rejected under
§ 102(b) and 103, depends on claim 29 and further recites that
"said main data and said control data are stored according to
the same predetermined formatting and encoding rules." The
Answer (at 7-8) explains that this limitation was addressed in
the § 102(b) rejection of the independent claims, i.e., claims
29, 36, 44, and 47, which relied on Sugita as "teach[ing] . .
. main data and control data formatted and encoded according
to the same rules." This is an apparent reference to paper
No. 11, the Office action that immediately preceded and is
incorporated by reference into the final Office action and
states (at 3) that in Sugita "[t]he video data and the
computer programs are formatted in such a way that
reproduction of sequential data strings is possible without
loss of data." Appellant has not explained why Sugita's
recording of the program data and the video data as lines and
fields is insufficient to satisfy claim 30. Instead, in
Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
- 8 -
arguing the Group B claims, appellant contends that this
feature is not taught by Souma (Brief at 9).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 30-35, 37-43,
45, 46, and 48-53 over Sugita in view of Souma
Because the § 102(b) rejection of claim 30 has been
affirmed, the § 103 rejection of that claim is also affirmed,
anticipation being the epitome of obviousness. In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982);
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA
1974).
Appellant contends that the remaining Group B claims,
i.e., claims 31-35, 37-43, 45, 46, and 48-53, are patentable
over Sugita and Souma because in Souma "there is no suggestion
of providing multiple control bit groups" (Brief at 9). This
feature is disclosed by Sugita for the reasons given above in
the discussion of the § 102(b) rejection.
Regarding the Group C claims, i.e., claims 34, 35, 37,
38, 45, and 53, appellant argues: "These claims include the
use of a group synchronization bit, whose value is the same
for the repeated groups of a packet, but is different for
other packets. This feature is useful, because it enables
Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
- 9 -
easy extraction of a clock frequency at a ÷n rate." (Brief at
9-10.) This synchronization bit feature is depicted in
appellant's Figure 15, wherein the topmost bit of each bit
group 150 represents the synchronizing bit of the bit group
(Spec. at 24, lines 25-26). The synchronizing bits 152 of the
two bit groups in each packet are identical (i.e., both 1 or
0) but alternate between 1's and 0's from packet to packet.
However, the synchronization bit feature as described in
appellant's argument is not actually recited in claim 53,
which calls for deriving a clock signal from the
synchronization bits without explaining the format of the
synchronization bits. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 53 therefore is affirmed on the ground that its merits
were not separately argued.
Nor is appellant's characteridescription of the
synchronization bit feature as calling for a "group
synchronization bit, whose value is the same for the repeated
groups of a packet, but is different for other packets"
commensurate in scope with claim 38, which recites the feature
in question in the broadest terms: "each of said control data
Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
- 10 -
bit groups of a packet comprises a synchronization bit having
one of a plurality of logic values, the logic values of
control data bit groups of two successive packets having
different values." This claim does not state or imply that
the "different values" limitation applies to the synchronizing
bits of the two successive packets, as argued. As a result,
the claim is broad enough to permit the "different values"
limitation to be read onto any of the data bits in the two
successive packets. Because appellant's argument is not
commensurate in scope with claim 38, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of that claim is affirmed, as is the rejection of
the remaining Group C claims, i.e., claims 34, 37, 38, and 45,
which are not separately argued.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
- 11 -
AFFIRMED
ERROL A KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
- 12 -
Corporate Patent Counsel
U.S. Philips Corporation
Patent Dept.
580 White Plains Rd.
Tarrytown, NY 10591