Ex parte Yamagami et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 26, 1998

08022561 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 1998)

Application for patent filed February 25, 1993. According to appellants, the1
application is a division of Application 07/689,057, filed April 22, 1991, now Patent
No. 5,587,901, granted December 24, 1996.
A minor amendment to claim 8 as filed after the final rejection has been2
entered by the examiner.
1
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publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TAMOTSU YAMAGAMI, YOICHIRO
SAKO and MASANOBU YAMAMOTO
_____________
Appeal No. 95-0355
Application 08/022,5611
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and
ABRAMS and FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. No other2
Appeal No. 95-0355
Application 08/022,561
2
claims are pending in the application.
The subject matter here claimed relates to a method for
reproducing main information data on a recording track
previously formed on an optical recording medium (e.g., a
magneto-optical disc) wherein the main information data is
contained in frames, wherein each frame has a predetermined
signal format including a frame sync signal format, and
wherein reproduce-only frame sync signals having the same
signal format as that of frame sync signals for the main
information data are previously recorded for each frame by
offsetting the recording track in a direction perpendicular to
the length direction of the track. Appealed claim 8, the only
independent claim on appeal, recites the steps of detecting
the offset of the recording track to produce a first signal
representative of the reproduce-only frame sync signals,
reproducing from the recording medium a second signal
corresponding to the main information data, and then using a
single demodulating and decoding circuit (53-55) to demodulate
and decode the detected first signal and the reproduced second
signal to reproduce the frame sync signals of the main
Appeal No. 95-0355
Application 08/022,561
3
information data and the frame sync signals recorded by
offsetting the recording track.
A copy of the appealed claims is appended to
appellant’s brief.
The following references are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness in support of his
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Ogawa et al. (Ogawa) 5,185,732 Feb. 9, 1993
(filed Jun. 19, 1989)
Rijnsburger 0 299 573 Jan. 18, 1989
(European Patent)
Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Rijnsburger. The
examiner’s position follows:
Ogawa et al. discloses [sic, disclose]
the invention as claimed (see specifically
the disclosure in reference to figs. 1, 3,
Appeal No. 95-0355
Application 08/022,561
4
& 6), but does [sic, do] not teach that the
previously formed offset information 4 is
the frame synch [sic, sync] signals. The
reference actually teaches that the offset
information 4 is the frame address
information. However, Rijnsburger discloses
in reference to figs. 3a-c that the synch
[sic, sync] signals can be previously
formed offset information, in the same
field of endeavor, for the purpose of
increasing the information capacity of the
recording medium.
It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to further include the
frame synch [sic, sync] signals of Ogawa et
al. within [sic, with] the information 4
previously formed as offset information on
the recording medium, as taught by
Rijnsburger. A practitioner in the art
would have been motivated to do this in
order to further increase the information
capacity of the recording medium.
* * *
By stating that the frame sync signals
would be included within the information 4
previously formed as offset information,
the examiner was merely alleging that it
would have been obvious to additionally
form the sync signals as offset
information. [Answer, pages 2-4.]
With particular regard to the claimed step of utilizing
a single demodulating and decoding circuit to demodulate and
Appeal No. 95-0355
Application 08/022,561
5
decode the claimed first and second signals, the examiner
states on page 6 of the answer that ?[t]he single demodulating
and decoding circuit . . . is interpreted . . . to be the
circuit of fig. 4 within [sic, in?] Ogawa et al..?
In addition to disputing the examiner’s position
regarding the step of utilizing a single circuit to demodulate
and decode the claimed first and second signals, appellants
advance the following arguments in support of patentability:
Ogawa, et al. disclose varying the track
width to record the addresses 4 of blocks
of signals. There is no disclosure in Ogawa
et al. of any track offsetting to prerecord
any sync signals, much less any frame sync
signals. Rijnsburger’s Figs. 3a-c, at best,
disclose offsetting the track width to
denote a ?sync? signal 43 which denotes the
beginning of each position-information
code. Page 4, lines 8-24. The offsetting
sync signal 43, even if incorporated into
Ogawa, et al.’s block data (comprising 98
frames) would still not produce a recording
medium on which reproduce-only frame sync
signals having the same signal format as
that of frame sync signals for the main
information data are previously recorded
for each frame by offsetting the recording
Appeal No. 95-0355
Application 08/022,561
6
track.
There is no disclosure that the sync
signal 43 has the same signal format as
that of any ?frame sync signals for the
main information data?. In fact, there is
no disclosure that the main information
data is even organized into frames or that
it has frame sync signals at all. [Reply
brief, page 2.]
The examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims is
untenable. Figure 4 of Ogawa’s drawings shows a photodetector
circuit which mainly comprises a four segment detector 10
composed of four photodetectors A, B, C and D for detecting
the optical readout of information photo-magnetically recorded
on a recording track 3 of a recording disc to produce a data
signal RF and an address information signal ADR from the
available signal and data information on the recording track
of the disc. In appellants’ system, the single demodulation
and decoding circuit shown in Figure 6 of appellants’ drawings
does not correspond to Ogawa’s photodetector circuit. Instead,
it is connected through a
selector switch 51 to the photodetector circuit which detects
the optical pickup from the track on the recording medium.
Appeal No. 95-0355
Application 08/022,561
7
Thus, in appellants’ invention, the single demodulating
and decoding circuit demodulates and decodes a first signal,
which has already been detected by an optical detector, and a
second signal which is reproduced from the recording medium.
In contrast, there is no disclosure in Ogawa that the signals
detected by Ogawa’s photodetector circuit 10 are subsequently
demodulated and decoded by any particular circuit, let alone a
single demodulating and decoding circuit as required in claim
8. The Rijnsburger reference does not rectify this deficiency
of Ogawa. For these reasons alone, we cannot sustain the § 103
of claims 8 and 10.
The examiner’s decision rejecting appealed claims 8 and
10 is therefore reversed.
Appeal No. 95-0355
Application 08/022,561
8
REVERSED
)
HARRISON E. McCANDLISH, Senior)
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-0355
Application 08/022,561
9
LIMBACH & LIMBACH
2001 Ferry Building
San Francisco, CA 94111