Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2013

10865868 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/865,868 06/14/2004 Ki-ju Lee 1793.1311 1861
21171 7590 01/29/2013
STAAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
ALUNKAL, THOMAS D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KI-JU LEE

____________________

Appeal 2010-008108
Application 10/865,868
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, AND JUSTIN
BUSCH Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008108
Application 10/865,868

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-35. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to:
An apparatus and method to control a disc driving speed
where apparatus includes processor to set a disc driving speed
and to transmit information of the disc driving speed according
to a predetermined protocol; a disc drive to receive and to store
the information of the disc driving speed, and to drive a disc at
the disc driving speed.

Spec. § Abstract.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below:
1. An apparatus to control a disc driving speed, comprising:
a processor to establish the disc driving speed and
transmit information of the disc driving speed in accordance
with a predetermined protocol; and
a disc drive to receive and store the information of the
disc driving speed, and to drive the disc at the disc driving
speed, the disc drive including a speed alternation unit changing
a current driving speed at which a disc is driven to the
established disc driving speed transmitted from the processor,
wherein the disc is driven at the disc driving speed until
the disc driving speed is replaced with another disc driving
speed, where the disc is driven at the stored disc driving speed
Appeal 2010-008108
Application 10/865,868

3
even after a disc tray of the disc drive is opened and/or closed
or a disc is changed.

References
Lee ‘428 US 6,154,428 Nov. 28, 2000
Yamashita US 2002/0159365 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Lee ‘967 US 6,538,967 B1 Mar. 25, 2003

Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 25-27, 29, 30, and 32-
35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Lee
‘967 and Yamashita.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, 21, 23, 28, and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Lee ‘967, Yamashita, and
Lee ‘428.

ISSUES
Appellant argues that the cited combination of Lee ‘967 and
Yamashita does not teach a processor transmitting a disc driving speed to a
disc drive that subsequently stores the speed. App. Br. 14-15. Appellant also
argues that the cited combination of references does not teach continuing to
drive a disc at a stored disc driving speed until the stored driving speed is
replaced with a new driving speed. App. Br. 15-17.
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Lee ‘967 and Yamashita teaches or suggests “a processor to establish the
disc driving speed and transmit information of the disc driving speed” and “a
Appeal 2010-008108
Application 10/865,868

4
disc drive to receive and store the information of the disc driving speed, and
to drive the disc at the disc driving speed,” as recited in claim 1 and
commensurately recited in claims 7, 13, 19, 27, 30, and 35?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Lee ‘967 and Yamashita teaches or suggests “where the disc is driven at the
stored disc driving speed even after a disc tray of the disc drive is opened
and/or closed or a disc is changed,” as recited in claim 1 and
commensurately recited in claims 7, 13, 19, 27, 30, and 35?

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
The Examiner relies on Lee ‘967 for teaching “a processor to establish
the disc driving speed and transmit information of the disc driving speed in
accordance with a predetermined protocol” and “a disc drive (Figure 2,
‘optical disk player’) to receive and store the information of the disc driving
speed.” Ans. 3. Appellant argues that the speed in Lee ‘967 is pre-stored and
that “the disc drive does not receive and store the information of the disc
driving speed from the controller 61.” App. Br. 14. Appellant also argues
that “Lee ‘967 does not suggest that a processor establishes the disc driving
speed and transmits the disc driving speed.” Id. Appellant summarizes the
argument by stating that “Lee ‘967 does not suggest that the processor 61
transmits a disc driving speed that is received and stored at a disc drive.”
App. Br. 14.
The Examiner finds that the claimed “information of the disc driving
speed” is not limited to “an actual disc driving speed, but also includes any
Appeal 2010-008108
Application 10/865,868

5
information related to a disc driving speed.” Ans. 10. The Examiner then
finds that “a specific servo control program is downloaded corresponding to
the reproduction speed,” which is then stored in memory. Ans. 10; see also
Final Office Action p. 2.
As an initial matter, we note that the Examiner is correct in pointing
out that it is not the “disc driving speed,” but rather “information of the disc
driving speed” that is transmitted from the processor and that is received and
stored by the disc drive. For example, “information of the disc driving
speed” could include identification of the servo program in Lee ‘967 that
controls the driving speed for the disk. Lee ‘967 col. 3 ll. 28-29 (“The ROM
100 contains data belonging to servo control programs and disk speeds
which are linked to each other”). Additionally, nothing in the claim requires
any particular order or timing with respect to storing the information. To the
extent that Appellant argues that the combination of Lee ‘967 and Yamashita
does not teach storing the “disc driving speed” (as opposed to “information
of the disc driving speed”), pre-storing the information, or receiving the
information “from the controller,” Appellant’s arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims.
We also agree with the Examiner’s findings that the servo control
program corresponding to the reproduction speed is downloaded and stored
in memory. Specifically, the portion of Lee ‘967 cited by the Examiner on
page 2 of the Final Office Action states, in part, that the system includes a
“controller 61 for selecting and downloading a servo control program
corresponding to the present reproduction condition for an optical disk 10
from an external ROM 100 into an internal flash memory 61a.” Lee ‘967
Appeal 2010-008108
Application 10/865,868

6
col. 3 ll. 19-23. Additionally, we note that the features of Appellant’s claims
relating to transmitting, receiving, and storing information of the driving
speed were well-known in the art, as Yamashita appears to teach these
features as well. Specifically, Yamashita teaches establishing a disk driving
speed and transmitting the speed through a system and eventually “to the
disk drive interface unit.” Yamashita Fig. 9, ¶ 101 (a processor to establish
and transmit a disk driving speed). Yamashita further teaches driving the
disk at the disk driving speed that was established “before the replacement
of the medium 740 stored in a storage unit,” which inherently requires that
the driving speed was previously received and stored in the storage unit.
Yamashita Fig. 9, ¶ 101 (disk drive receives and stores a disk driving speed).
Therefore, we find that Lee ‘967, in combination with Yamashita,
teaches a controller that reads on the claimed “processor to establish the disc
driving speed and transmit information of the disc driving speed in
accordance with a predetermined protocol.” We also find that the
Examiner’s proposed combination teaches a “disc drive to receive and store
the information of the disc driving speed, and to drive the disc at the disc
driving speed.”

Issue 2
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that paragraph 135 of
Yamashita teaches driving the disk drive at the stored disk driving speed
“even after a disc tray of the disc drive is opened and/or closed or a disc is
changed.” Ans. 13; see also Yamashita ¶ 134. Appellant has not provided
any argument against the teachings of paragraph 135 of Yamashita.
Appeal 2010-008108
Application 10/865,868

7
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree
with the Examiner’s conclusion that independent claims 1, 7, 13, 19, 27, 30,
and 35 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Lee’967 and
Yamashita.

Dependent Claims
Appellant argues that dependent claims 26 and 34 are not rendered
obvious by the combination of Lee ‘967 and Yamashita because neither Lee
‘967 nor Yamashita suggests storing the disk driving speed at the disk drive.
This argument is based on the same argument raised for Issue 2. However,
for the same reason as discussed above, we find that Lee ‘967 in
combination with Yamashita does teach every limitation of dependent
claims 26 and 34.

Dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, 22, 25, 29, 32, and 33 are not
argued separately and we thus find that they are obvious in view of the
combination of Lee ‘967 and Yamashita for the same reasons as discussed
above.

Appellant argues that Lee ‘428 fails to cure any of the deficiencies in
Lee ‘967 and Yamashita. We find no deficiencies in the combination of Lee
‘967 and Yamashita as discussed above. Therefore, we find that dependent
claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, 21, 23, 28, and 31, not argued separately, are
obvious in view of the combination of Lee ‘967, Yamashita, and Lee ‘428.

Appeal 2010-008108
Application 10/865,868

8

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-35
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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

ELD