Ex parte YOON

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2000

08211414 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2000)

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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JONG-YOON YOON
__________
Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application 08/211,414
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and HECKER, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HECKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 and 2, all of the claims pending in this application.
The invention relates to a circuit for reading out data
from a disk in a disk drive, the disk having tracks forming
Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application No. 08/211,414
2
concentric circles partitioned into sectors. Each sector has
a first region with recorded servo data of one frequency and a
second region with recorded information data of different
frequencies. The read out circuit has a filter for the servo
data frequency, and several filters for the different
frequencies of the information data.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A circuit for reading out data from a disk having a
plurality of tracks forming concentric circles partitioned
into a plurality of sectors, each sector consisting of a first
region recorded with servo data of the same frequency and a
second region recorded with information data of different
frequencies, said circuit comprising:
pickup means (20) for picking up said data written on
said disk and converting said data into an electrical signal;
first filter means (23) for filtering signal frequencies
corresponding only to the frequencies of said servo data in
said picked-up electrical signal;
second filter means (24) consisting of a plurality of
filters for filtering signal frequencies corresponding to each
frequency of said information data in said picked-up
electrical signal; and
filter selection control means (25) responsive to the
outputs of said first and said second filter means for
recognizing each of the different frequency bands of said data
and for providing a servo signal to said first filter means to
allow said first filter means (23) to be active when said
picked-up electrical signal corresponds to said servo data and
to allow a corresponding one of said filters in said second
Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application No. 08/211,414
This is a new ground of rejection, made in the1
Examiner’s Answer.
3
filter means (24) to be active by recognizing each data
frequency corresponding to data having different bands when
said electrical signal corresponds to said information data.
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Fischler et al. (Fischler) 4,894,734 Jan. 16, 1990
Abbott et al. (Abbott) 5,422,760 Jun. 6, 1995
(effective filing date Aug. 27, 1992)
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (APA)

Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over APA considered with Fischler and Abbott .1
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over APA considered with Abbott.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief, reply brief, answer
and supplemental answer for the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 and 2 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application No. 08/211,414
4
Claim 1
The Examiner reasons on page 5 of the Answer that APA
(Appellant’s Figure 1) teaches the claimed invention except
that the second filter (14), for information data, is not a
plurality of filters. The Examiner notes that filter
selection control means (15) is substantially taught since it
is responsive to the outputs of all filters (although plural
data information filters are missing) to allow the appropriate
filter to be active. To meet the claimed plurality of
filters, the Examiner cites Fischler, Figure 2, noting that a
zone code (18) is used to select an information data filter
(31-34) dependent on the selected zone to be reproduced. On
page 6 of the Answer, the Examiner notes that Fischler does
not teach selecting a data filter by recognizing the frequency
band in use in the picked up signal. To fulfill this
requirement, the Examiner cites Abbott’s filter 48 in Figure
4. The Examiner points out that Abbott’s filter 48 is adapted
to the zone [frequency] selected on the disk by recognition of
the incoming data stream (i.e., picked up signal). Thus, the
Examiner explains, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have
Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application No. 08/211,414
5
modified the APA by replacing the single information data
filter (14) with the plurality of information data filters
(31-34) of Fischler to optimize data reproduction.
Furthermore, the Examiner explains, Fischler’s filter
selection could be predicated on the actual reproduced
information data signal
(i.e., picked up signal), since Abbott, in a similar system,
teaches filter adaptation based upon the actual information
data signal.
Appellant argues, “Appellant’s admitted prior art does
not recognize different information data frequency bands in
data picked up by a pickup means...[a]ccordingly, Appellant’s
admitted prior art does not teach or suggest selecting from
among a plurality of filters based upon such recognition.”
(reply brief-page 2).
We disagree. At page 2, lines 11-15, of Appellant’s
specification describing the prior art it states:
Currently, a zone bit recording mode is utilized
to maximize the recording density of the
information data, wherein the servo data has the
same frequency throughout every zone on a disk,
but the data on the region where the information
data is recorded, is recorded and reproduced as
frequencies having different bands for the
respective zones.
Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application No. 08/211,414
6
Thus, APA does recognize different information data frequency
bands in different zones. Furthermore, APA recognizes the
frequency band present in the picked up signal to select the
proper filter as recited in the specification at page 1, lines
22-25, wherein it states:
a signal controller 15 for recognizing the
frequencies corresponding to the servo data and
information data having different bandwidths
from each other, and generating a signal for
activating one filter corresponding to the
recognized frequency;

Thus, although APA is recognizing and selecting between the
servo data frequencies and the information data frequencies,
the basic concept of selecting filters based upon the
frequency content of the received signal is clearly taught by
APA.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s alternative
rationale for selecting a filter, based on Abbott, is in error
because Appellant’s filters are analog filters (based upon an
In re Donaldson analysis), Fischler’s filters are analog
filters, but Abbott’s filter 48 is an adaptive digital filter.
(Reply brief-pages 3 and 4.)
Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application No. 08/211,414
7
The Examiner strongly contests the applicability of In re
Donaldson (supplemental answer). However, we find that the
type of filter, analog or digital, is irrelevant to the
teaching cited in Abbott by the Examiner. That is, whatever
the type of filter, Abbott teaches that the filter
characteristics can be selected based upon the frequency in
the signal being currently read.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over APA considered with
Fischler and Abbott. We find this so, for the two rationales
suggested by the Examiner. First, we find that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
modified APA by replacing the single information data filter
with the plural information data filters in Fischler, and
selecting the relevant one of Fischler’s information data
filters based upon the signal received from a particular
sector, in the manner Abbott adapts filter 48 (answer-page 6).
Secondly, and as the Examiner states “alternatively”, we find
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of invention, to have used the filter
selection teaching of the APA to select the appropriate
Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application No. 08/211,414
8
information data filter of Fischler, just as the APA selects
between the servo data filter and the information data filter
(answer-page 7). Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
Claim 2
Appellant repeats the arguments made with respect to
claim 1 as being applicable with respect to claim 2. In
addition, Appellant emphasizes:
lines 13-18 of claim 2 specifically require that the
filter control means is “responsive to the outputs
of said first and second filter means” [emphasis by
Appellant]. Neither Appellant’s admitted prior art
nor Abbott teach or suggest that a filter is
programmed in response to the outputs of the
filters. Abbott merely teaches [] varying the
characteristic of a filter in response to a zone of
a disk from which data is read. (Reply brief-pages
5 and 6.)
The Examiner responds:
The admitted prior art Figure 1 shows the outputs of
filters 13 and 14 controlling signal controller 15.
See pages 1 and 2 of the specification. Moreover,
Abbott et al programs a filter in accordance with
the data transfer rate of a selected zone. See
column 10, lines 19-22 of Abbott et al. As noted on
page 8 of the Examiner’s Answer, “Abbott teaches in
fig. 4 programming the filter (40) via the
microcontroller (56) according to the selected
zone.” (Supplemental answer-page 3.)
Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application No. 08/211,414
9
We agree with the Examiner. The APA clearly teaches
selection between filters based upon the reproduced signal
from the disk wherein the servo data filter or the information
data filter is selected to be active. Thus, the APA clearly
teaches the filter control means is responsive to the outputs
of the different filter means. Appellant implies that claim 2
requires the filter to be programmed in response to the
outputs of the filters. We find that claim 2 recites no such
requirement. Claim 2 recites that “said second filter means
includes means for programming the band of said second filter
means to a frequency band corresponding to the frequency band
of said information data in said picked up signal.” (emphasis
added). As the Examiner points out, this requirement is met
by Abbott wherein it states filter “40 is programmed so that
it is optimized for the data transfer rate of the selected
data zone 70 from within which the
transducer head 26 is reading data.” (column 10, lines 19-22).
We find this clearly meets the corresponding to language of
claim 2.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 2.
Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application No. 08/211,414
10
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. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In addition, the Federal Circuit reasons in Para-Ordnance
Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087-
88, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239-40 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied,
117 S.Ct. 80 (1996), that for the determination of
obviousness, the court must answer whether one of ordinary
skill in the art who sets out to solve the problem, and who
had before him in his workshop the prior art, would have been
reasonably expected to use the solution that is claimed by the
Appellants.
We find that those skilled in the art having the
teachings of Abbott and Fischler before them would have made
the obvious improvement to Appellant’s APA.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application No. 08/211,414
11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Jerry Smith ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Stuart N. Hecker )
Administrative Patent Judge )
tdl
Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application No. 08/211,414
12
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-3202