Ex Parte Lakshmikumaran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2018

15062827 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
15/062,827
81505
ORACLE
7590
FILING DATE
03/07/2016
07/06/2018
(Oracle formerly d/b/a Sun Microsystems)
8055 East Tufts A venue
Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anand V. Lakshmikumaran
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ORA140954-US-CNT-l 3254
EXAMINER
EV ANS, JEFFERSON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ptomail@mfblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANAND V. LAKSHMIKUMARAN and JOSEPH E. TORLINE
Appeal2018-000341
Application 15/062,827
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 10-20, which are all the claims
pending and rejected in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Oracle International
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 4, 5, 8, and 9 are objected to and are not before us. Final Act. 4.
Appeal2018-000341
Application 15/062,827
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to tape
heads for writing data to and reading data from magnetic tape media. See
generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of operating a tape drive, comprising:
first moving a tape over a first module of a tape head, wherein the first
moving includes:
passing a first track of the tape over a span of transducers of the first
module;
passing the first track of the tape over a first edge portion of the first
module;
passing a second track of the tape over a second edge portion of the
first module, wherein the second track of the tape is spaced from the first
track of the tape along a reference line that is perpendicular to first and
second opposite lateral edges of the tape,
and wherein the first edge portion of the first module is sharper than
the second edge portion of the first module; and
second moving the tape over a second module of the tape head,
wherein the second moving includes:
passing the second track of the tape over a first edge portion of the
second module;
passing the second track of the tape over a span of transducers of the
second module; and
passing the first track of the tape over a second edge portion of the
second module, wherein the first edge portion of the second module is
sharper than the second edge portion of the second module.
Sundaram
Reference and Rejection
US Patent 5,751,527 May 12, 1998
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Sundaram (U.S. 5,751,527; May 12, 1998).
2
Appeal2018-000341
Application 15/062,827
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Sundaram
disclose "wherein the first edge portion of the first module is sharper than
the second edge portion of the first module," as recited in independent
claim 1. 3 See Appeal Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2--4.
The Examiner cites Sundaram's Figure 2 and finds "at least part of the
first track will be over a slot and thus over a sharper edge of the first
module while at least part of the second track will be over a land and thus
over a less sharp edge" (emphases added). Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 6.
We have reviewed the cited Sundaram's Figure 2 and its associated
description, and they do not disclose the bleed slot 102 has "a sharper edge"
and the land 104 has a "less sharp edge," as the Examiner asserts (Final Act.
3).
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner asserts in an
alternative mapping, "the lands 104 define the sharper edge and the slots 102
define the less sharp edge." Ans. 7. Again, we have reviewed the cited
Sundaram's Figure 2 and its associated description, and they do not support
the Examiner's assertion. Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we
do not see how the cited Sundaram's Figure 2 and its associated description
disclose the disputed claim limitation.
3 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2018-000341
Application 15/062,827
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the
record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claims 6 and 16 recites a claim limitation that is
substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 6 and
16. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of independent claims 6 and 16.
We also reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
corresponding dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 10-15, and 17-20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7, and
10-20.
REVERSED
4