Ex Parte Woo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 20, 2007

09873638 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte JISUNG WOO

__________

Appeal 2007-2842
Application 09/873,638
Technology Center 3600
__________

DECIDED: September 20, 2007
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD E. ADAMS, and LORA M. GREEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1-10, all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
DISCUSSION
“The present invention relates to a changer for disk-shaped recording
media” (Spec. 1: 3-4). “According to the invention [ ] disk plates are
mounted at one end via a hinge . . . in such a way that they can pivot about
Appeal 2007-2842
Application 09/873,638

an horizontal axis of the chassis of the changer” (id. at 1: 33-36). “[T]he
pivoting movement of the disk plates and their corresponding spreading
operation [enables] the user [to] access all disks inside the changer . . .
except that disk or those disks which are just subjected to playback on a
pick-up or an equivalent reader” (id. at 2: 3-7).
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A changer for disk-shaped recording media including a drawer
slidably mounted within a chassis of the changer and supporting a
number of disk plates arranged one above the other and provided to
hold a disk therein, wherein at least one disk plate is mounted at one
end via a hinge at the drawer in such a way that it is pivotable about a
horizontal axis of the chassis of the changer.

Figure 1 of the instant Specification illustrates an embodiment of the
invention that meets the limitations of claim 1. The disk plates are shown in
a non-pivoted position. Figure 1 is reproduced below:

According to the Specification, “[t]he disk plates 7 are pivotally
mounted by hinges at the side walls 4, 5 of the drawer 7 [sic, 3]” and “[t]his
pivotable mounting is implemented by pins 9 at a rear edge of the disk plates
7 cooperating with slots 10 within the side walls 4, 5” (Spec. 4: 10-13).
2
Appeal 2007-2842
Application 09/873,638

Figure 2 of the instant Specification shows the same embodiment as
Figure 1, but with the disk plates pivoted about the hinges formed by the
pins 9 and the slots 10. Figure 2 of the instant Specification is reproduced
below:

Anticipation
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Yamanaka.1 Appellant has not argued the rejected claims separately.
Therefore, we will focus on claim 1 as representative of the claimed subject
matter, and claims 2-10 will stand or fall with claim 1, as provided for in 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

1 European Patent Application EP 0 905 686 A2 to Yamanaka et al.,
published March 31, 1999.
3
Appeal 2007-2842
Application 09/873,638

The Examiner contends that Yamanaka “discloses a changer
comprising all the elements recited in the above listed claims . . . as shown
in Fig 2” (Answer 3). Yamanaka’s Figure 2 is reproduced below:

According to the Examiner, Yamanaka’s Figure 2 illustrates a disk
changer that includes “a disk-shaped recording media drawer (12, 13)
slidably mounted within a chassis (11) and supporting a number of disk
plates (16, 17, 18) arranged one above the other and provided to hold a disk
[ ] therein” (Answer 3). According to the Examiner, “at least one disk plate
[is] mounted at one end via a hinge at the drawer in such a way that it is
pivotable about a horizontal axis of the chassis of the changer, wherein the
4
Appeal 2007-2842
Application 09/873,638

disk plate is provided with a pin 31h at its edge, such as shown in Fig 3(b),
remote from the edge at which the disk can be drawn from the disk plate”
(id.). Yamanaka’s Figures 3(a) and 3(b) are reproduced below:

The Examiner notes that pin 31h “cooperat[es] with an opening 25 in
a side wall of the drawer or an opening within a side wall of the chassis . . .
[wherein the] opening within the side wall of the chassis has the form of a
slot extending perpendicular to the pivoting axis of the disk plates” (id.).
5
Appeal 2007-2842
Application 09/873,638

The slot in the side wall of the chassis “includes a horizontal section and a
subsequent downwardly inclined section, such as shown in Fig 2, enabling a
pivoting of the disk plate within the drawer about a horizontal axis” (id.).
Figures 16(a) and 16(b) “illustrate the frontmost position of the
stocker mechanism 10 wherein the base frame 12 is moved forward from the
standby position by the distance A3 and reaches the cartridge loading/
unloading position . . . Fig. 16(a) illustrates the stocker mechanism 10 as
viewed from the side of the right side chassis 22. Fig. 16(b) omits the right
side chassis 22” (Yamanaka ¶ 94). Figures 16(a) and 16(b) are reproduced
below:

6
Appeal 2007-2842
Application 09/873,638

Appellant contends that Yamanaka “teaches a completely different
arrangement in which only a subframe retained by a base frame of a chassis
of a storage medium stocker is pivotable instead of a disk plate as recited in
Appellant[’s] claims 1-10” (Appeal Br. 4).
The issue raised by this appeal, then, is whether the claimed disk
changer is distinguishable over Yamanaka’s device. Appellant’s argument
does not persuade us that it is.
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d
1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “An essential purpose
of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and
unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be
removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
First, we agree with the Examiner that “the claim[ ] language fails to
provide adequate structural limitations to the claim in order to distinguish
from Yamanaka” (Answer 4). Second, we disagree with Appellant’s
assertion that only the sub-frame, and not the stocker tray, of Yamanaka’s
device is pivotable. Specifically:
• Yamanaka’s “base frame 12 is disposed in the chassis 11 so as to be
slidable in a loading direction” (Yamanaka ¶ 19), and “[t]he sub-
frame[ ] 13 is retained pivotably by the base frame 12” (id.). Thus,
base frame 12 and sub-frame 13, together, are slidably mounted
within the chassis, and we agree with the Examiner that these two
elements comprise the claimed “drawer slidably mounted within a
chassis of the changer” (instant claim 1).

7
Appeal 2007-2842
Application 09/873,638

• Yamanaka’s slidably mounted base frame and sub-frame support
stocker trays “laid to overlap each other in a direction substantially
perpendicular to a loading/unloading direction” (Yamanaka ¶ 10).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Yamanaka describes a disk
changer in which a slidably mounted drawer “support[s] a number of
disk plates arranged one above the other and provided to hold a disk
therein” as required by claim 1.

• Finally, as explained in Yamanaka, when “the base frame 12 is moved
forward from the standby position . . . and reaches the cartridge
loading/unloading position” (Yamanaka ¶ 94), it “remains parallel to
the mount wall G, while the sub-frame 13 swings clockwise through
an angle α2 about the pivot 25a on the base frame 12” (id. at ¶ 96).
“The swing of the sub-frame 13 through the angle α2 causes the first
to third stocker trays 16 to 18 to swing upward through the angle α2”
(id. at ¶ 97). Rear pins 31h, installed on the outer rear surfaces of the
stocker trays, allow the stocker trays to swing upward along with the
sub-frame 13. For example, “[t]he second and third stocker trays 17
and 18 have the front pins 31g inserted into the laterally elongated
holes 25d and 25e of the [ ] side plate of the sub-frame 13 and the rear
pins 31h . . . inserted into the laterally elongated holes 15c and 15d of
the cam plate so that they can move in parallel to the first stocker tray
16 and rotate about the pin 25a of the base frame 12 through the sub-
frame 13” (id. at 86). In other words, rear pins 31h, installed on the
stocker trays and engaging slots in the sub-frame, are hinges that
allow the stocker trays (i.e., disk plates) to pivot about a horizontal
axis with respect to the chassis. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Yamanaka describes “at least one disk plate [ ] mounted at one
end via a hinge at the drawer in such a way that it is pivotable about a
horizontal axis of the chassis of the changer” (instant claim 1).

We find that Yamanaka describes a disk changer meeting all of the
limitations of claim 1. As discussed above, claims 2-10 stand or fall with
claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is affirmed.
8
Appeal 2007-2842
Application 09/873,638

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Yamanaka 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)(iv) (2006).

AFFIRMED

sah

JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI
THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC.
2 INDEPENDENCE WAY
P.O. BOX 5312
PRINCETON NJ 08543-5312
9