Ex Parte Coker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2015

12653862 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2015)

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.
12/653,862 12/18/2009 Jonathan Darrel Coker HSJ920090069US1 5702
41482 7590 03/24/2015
MARLIN KNIGHT
P. O. BOX 1320
PIONEER, CA 95666
EXAMINER
MERCEDES, DISMERY E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2015 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 JONATHAN DARREL COKER and
DAVID TIMOTHY FLYNN
____________

Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims 1–20.
App. Br. 3; Ans. 2–5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal.
Leis US 2002/0150179 A1 Oct. 17, 2002
Coker US 7,193,800 B2 Mar. 20, 2007
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Coker and Leis. Ans. 2–5; see also App. Br. 6.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 13, AND 19
All claims are rejected as obvious over Coker and Leis. Appellants
present several arguments for independent claims 1, 13, and 19 collectively.
App. Br. 7–9. The remaining claims depend from claims 1, 13, and 19. Id.
at 14–19 (claims appendix).
As reflected below, the arguments for claims 1, 13, and 19 pertain to
three shared limitations paraphrased by Appellants as follows: “sequences
of bits from a predetermined set; the sequences arranged in the servo fields
so that sequences that are adjacent in a cross-track direction are
mathematically orthogonal; and predetermined sequence combinations are
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

3
mapped to an integer location identifier.” Id. at 7. We agree that the
asserted distinctions are embodied by each of claims 1, 13, and 19. The
principle issue is therefore: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in
finding that Coker and Leis suggest the asserted “sequences” limitations?
The Examiner reads the claimed set of sequences on Coker’s two
types of pseudo random binary sequences (PRBSs), which include a +PRBS
and inverse –PRBS. Ans. 2–3. Of note, the Examiner finds the +PRBS and
–PRBS have variations; thus yielding more sequences. See e.g., Ans. 7
(finding cyclic pads yield such variations).
Appellants argue that Coker’s mere two PRBS types are not suitable
for implementing sequence combinations mapped to integer location
identifiers (e.g., integer track identifiers). App. Br. 7. Appellants
particularly state:
The Examiner’s rejection recognizes there is no teaching
in Coker ‘800 that predetermined sequence combinations are
mapped to an integer location identifier as the independent
claims herein require. In contrast to applicants’ present claims,
Coker ‘800 teaches that the “cyclic shift between the leading
and following PRBS increases by a fixed increment with each
track in the radial direction so that the length of the cyclic shift
between the leading and following PRBS in each track
represents the [track identification].” (Coker ‘800, col. 2, lines
22–26). As further illustrated in Coker ‘800 Fig. 8, the track ID
information is encoded as a “length” or distance between the
PRBS fields. There are only two PRBS sequences in an
embodiment according to Coker ‘800, i.e. a +PRBS and
–PRBS. (See Coker ‘SOD, Fig. 5A–B; col. 7, lines 30–44).
Using two sequences it is obviously not possible to encode any
number larger than 4, and there is not even a teaching of doing
that in Coker ‘800.
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

4
Id. (Appellants’ emphases omitted). In sum, Appellants contend: (i) Coker
corresponds integer track IDs with the cyclic shifts between sequences and
(ii) Coker’s mere two sequence types +/–PRBS are insufficient to instead, in
view of Leis, map sequence permutations to integer track IDs. The
argument is not persuasive; particularly insofar as failing to sufficiently
address the Examiner’s reliance on Coker and Leis and also being
incommensurate with the scope of the claimed inventions.
The Examiner finds that Coker’s cyclic-shifted combinations of
PRBSs embody sequence permutations suited for mapping to integer track
IDs. Alternatively, the Examiner finds that Coker’s cyclic-shifted
combinations of PRBSs embody sequence correlations suited for mapping
to integer track IDs. See e.g., Ans. 5–6 (“Coker et al. discloses a track id
decoder . . . wherein an integer position . . . is calculated based on the
correlation of two sequences[, but] . . . fails to expressly disclose wherein
each predetermined sequence combination is mapped to an integer location
identifier.”). In either respect, the Examiner finds that PRBS combinations
each embody one of numerous possible cyclic-shift magnitudes and are thus
suited for mapping to integer track IDs. Appellants fail to explain why this
overall finding is unreasonable or in error.
Instead, Appellants assert that Coker’s cyclic-shifted combinations of
PRBSs do not embody sequence permutations. However, claims 1, 13, and
19 do not recite the “sequence combinations” as being limited to sequence
permutations. Furthermore, Appellants provide no indication of how or why
— much less identify support in the Specification or provide extrinsic
evidence — that the “sequence combinations” are limited to sequence
permutations. Appellants merely provide a summary of claimed subject
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

5
matter that is not tied to the arguments and merely cites to non-limiting
exemplary embodiments of the invention. App. Br. 5 (Summary of Claimed
Subject Matter); Spec. 27 (“[T]he disclosed embodiments of the invention
are merely illustrative and not intended to limit the scope of the invention as
specified in the appended claims.”). Therefore, Appellants have identified
no reason why the proposed mapping of Coker’s PRBS combinations, and
particularly mapping of their embodied cyclic-shift magnitudes, falls outside
the spirit and scope of Appellants’ claimed invention. Spec. 27 (“[I]t will be
understood by those skilled in the art that various changes in form and detail
may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.”).
Appellants additionally argue that “Leis teaches away from the use of
mathematically orthogonal adjacent sequences in a cross-track direction.”
App. Br. 8. The Examiner responds that “Coker et al. was relied on for
disclosing mathematical orthogonal sequences as claimed, not Leis et al[.]”
Ans. 6.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive, again failing to address the
Examiner’s reliance on Coker and Leis. As reflected by the Examiner’s
response, the rejection finds that Coker’s adjacent sequences are
mathematically-orthogonal in a cross-track direction. Ans. 2–3. Even
assuming arguendo Leis teaches away from implementing its own adjacent
sequences in mathematically-orthogonal configurations, there is no
corresponding indication that artisans would not implement Coker’s
different sequences in such a manner.
For claims 13 and 19, Appellants further argue that some sequences
are not “mutually mathematically orthogonal,” thus “allow[ing] an expanded
set of sequences to be used while maintaining the advantages of having
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

6
orthogonal sequences in a cross-track direction.” App. Br. 12. The
argument is not persuasive; particularly insofar as failing to explain what is
meant — e.g., included or precluded — by “mutually mathematically
orthogonal.” See In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater
detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over
the prior art.”). Merely stating that the feature allows for an expanded set of
sequences does not clarify the meaning, much less present a required feature
for comparison against Coker’s and Leis’ teachings. The Specification also
fails to present a helpful explanation. See e.g., Spec. 13 (“[S]equences
which are adjacent on the disk must be necessarily mutually orthogonal, i.e.
the sequence set can contain members that are not mutually orthogonal.”).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown any error in the
rejection of claims 1, 13, and 19. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that “each pair of sequences
that are adjacent in a cross-track direction on the disk are orthogonal when a
first or second sequence in each pair is cyclically extended by one bit unit
shift.”
Appellants argue:
Coker ‘800 . . . does not teach anything about the orthogonality
of adjacent sequences when a first or second sequence in each
pair is cyclically extended by one bit unit shift. Coker ‘800
only uses two bit sequences for the +/–PRBS as noted above. It
should be noted that Coker ‘800 uses the phrase “cyclic shift”
to mean a positional shift between the leading and trailing
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

7
PRBS fields and not a shift of the bit positions inside the
sequence as is used in the present application.
App. Br. 9.
The Examiner responds with additional evidence that, contrary to
Appellants’ argument, Coker’s orthogonal PRBSs are themselves extended
by cyclic pads. Ans. 7. The Examiner particularly states:
Coker et al. disclose wherein before and after each PRBS
sequence there is cyclic pad (fig. 5a, col. 8, lines 16–21 —
wherein the cyclic pad extends the sequence by at least one bit)
and wherein the PRBS sequence is 2^n–1 [and] . . . n is an
integer (col. 7, lines 30–33 — wherein the number of bits in the
sequence can be adjusted as desired).
Id. The evidence is persuasive. See Coker, col. 8, ll. 16–17 (“Before and
after each PRBS field is a cyclic pad which is part of the period of the
PRBS.”). The evidence is also uncontroverted (no Reply Brief).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 is sustained.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that “each sequence is
followed by a trailing redundant bit that is equal to a first bit in the
sequence.”
Appellants argue:
The Examiner cited generally to Coker ‘800 Figs. 5a and 8 and
the descriptions thereof. . . . [I]nspection of these figures and
the text reveals no teaching about trailing redundant bits being
equal to a first bit in the sequence. Coker ‘800 Fig. 5a shows
that the first and last bits in the example sequences are not
equal.
App. Br. 9.
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

8
The Examiner responds that it would have been obvious to provide
Coker’s PRBS a trailing redundant bit in view of Leis, stating:
Coker et al. discloses wherein before and after each PRBS
sequence there is cyclic pad (fig. 5a, col. 8, lines 16–21)[.] Leis
et al. discloses wherein the track binary pattern may include a
parity of cyclic redundancy check symbol (para. 0026). Hence,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Coker et al.
by adding a cyclic redundancy check bit as disclosed by Leis et
al. before and after each PRBS sequence[;] the CRC bits being
of the same polarity (1 or 0) in order to provide error detection
and correction.
And. 7–8; see also id. at 3 (grounds of rejection citing to both Coker and
Leis).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive; again failing to address the
Examiner’s reliance on Coker and Leis. Contrary to the argument, the
Examiner does not find that the asserted limitation is expressly taught by
Coker, but rather finds the limitation is suggested by Coker and Leis
collectively.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 is sustained.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the location identifier
includes a track identifier and a sector identifier.”
Appellants argue:
Coker ‘800 expressly states: “The data sectors contain no data
sector identification (ID) fields for uniquely identifying the data
sectors so the drive is considered to have a “No-ID”.TM. type
of data architecture, also called a “headerless” data
architecture.” (col. 3, lines 35–38). The Examiner cites Leis
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

9
[0100] which as noted above merely describes a Viterbi
detector.
App. Br. 9.
The Examiner responds with additional evidence that it would have
been obvious to map Coker’s PRBS combinations (addressed supra for
claims 1, 13, and 19) to both sector and track IDs in view of Leis, stating:
Leis et al. discloses wherein location identifier clearly includes
a track identifier and a sector identifier (location identifier:
track number, head number, and sector number (fig. 4, 12 —
para. 0075, 0100). It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Coker et al.
with location identifier as disclosed by Leis et al. in order to
provide accurate position and control of the recording head with
respect to the recording medium.
Ans. 8.
The evidence is persuasive. See Leis, ¶ 100 (“Viterbi detector 60
. . . can be used to detect . . . track number, head number, and sector
number.” (Emphasis added)). And, contrary to Appellants’ argument, Leis’
cited disclosure does not merely describe a Viterbi detector. Id.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 is sustained.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the servo fields are
arranged on the disk in servo wedges[;] and wherein there are at least two
sequences of equal length in each servo wedge from the predetermined set of
sequences for each data track and the two sequences taken together are
mapped to an integer location identifier.”
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

10
Appellants argue:
This claim clearly distinguishes over any combination of Coker
‘800 and Leis for the reasons noted above [for base claim 1].
Neither Leis nor Coker ‘800 teach that “two sequences taken
together are mapped to an integer location identifier.”
App. Br. 10.
Accordingly, for the reasons sustaining the rejection of claim 1
(supra), the rejection of claim 5 is sustained.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites that “two sequences in each
servo wedge for each data track are positioned side-by-side in a cross-track
direction and each of the two sequences is one-half as wide as the data
track.”
Appellants argue that the Examiner unreasonably characterizes Leis’
servo bursts as suggesting a reconfiguration of Coker’s PRBSs to half the
width of a data track; failing to consider that the PRBSs provide track IDs
whereas Leis’ servo bursts provide the read head position. App. Br. 10.
Appellants particularly state:
The Examiner cited generally to Coker ‘800 Figs. 5a–8, but
inspection of these figures and the text shows that the PRBS
fields are exactly the width of a track, not one half as wide as
the data track as claimed. Moreover, the side-by-side fields in
Coker ‘800 are not taken together to map to an integer location
identifier as claimed.
The Examiner also cites Leis Fig. 13E, but as Leis [0102] states
Figs. 13A–13E give “five servo burst formats” which are not
track IDs fields and not integer location identifiers. Note in
Leis Fig. 4, the track number field 736 is separate from the
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

11
“burst” field 737. Leis [0064] states, “Following the addressing
information, servo bursts 737 are recorded, which are used to
determine head position with respect to track center, as will be
described.” Thus, the Examiner’s citations do not support the
obviousness rejection.
Id. (paragraphing added).
The Examiner responds with additional evidence that Coker’s PRBSs
and Leis’ servo bursts each have positioning functions, stating:
Coker et al. discloses wherein two sequences in each servo
wedge for each data track are positioned side-by-side in a
cross-track direction (fig. 5A — discloses side by side
(adjacent) PRBS sequences) and wherein the TID [track ID] is a
combination of PES [position error signal] field and STM
[servo timing mark] field (fig. 5A). Coker et al. does not
expressly disclose wherein each of the two sequences is
one-half as wide as the data track.
Leis et al. discloses track addresses (fig. 6A) and further
discloses servo burst that are one-half wide as the data track
(figs. 13A, C, E). Therefore it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Coker et
al. with Leis’ teachings . . . in order to provide accurate position
and control of the recording head with respect to the recording
medium (para. 0075).
Ans. 9 (paragraphing added).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive; particularly insofar that the
Examiner presents a rational basis for configuring Coker’s PRBSs similarly
to Leis’ servo bursts. The Examiner’s responds that Coker’s PRBSs provide
not only track IDs, but also a position error signal field. Ans. 8
(block-quoted above). The position error signal is used “to maintain the
head on track.” Coker, col. 2, ll. 26–29. Thus, the Examiner presents a
basis for configuring Coker’s PRBSs similarly to Leis’ servo bursts; namely
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

12
that the PRBSs and servo bursts are both utilized for head positioning. See
Leis ¶ 55 (“Position error signals (PES) from the burst detector . . .”).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 is sustained.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 5 and recites that “two sequences in each
servo wedge for each data track are positioned side-by-side in a cross-track
direction and each of the two sequences is one-half as wide as the data
track.” Appellants’ arguments and the Examiner’s response for claim 7 are
nearly identical, in substance, to those addressed above for claim 6.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 is sustained.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1. Appellants present no arguments for
claim 8.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 8 is sustained.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1. Appellants do not present a separate
argument for patentability for claim 9, but rather solely rely on the
arguments for claim 1. App. Br. 11.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 is sustained.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 1. Claim
9 recites: “a read head which generates a signal created by the sequences
passing under . . . ; and a servo system with means for detecting first and
second signal amplitudes corresponding to first and second sequences . . . to
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

13
generate a position error[.]” Claim 10 recites that the servo system includes
filters whereby “a corresponding filter [detects] each sequence . . .” and “the
set of filters provides a servo track mark signal.”
Appellants argue that the Examiner unreasonably characterizes
Coker’s +/–synch correlators 604, 605 as detecting respective signals of the
+/–PRBSs, stating:
[T]here is no teaching in Coker ‘800 that suggests there should
be or needs to be a filter for each sequence. . . . Coker’s
description of Fig. 6 relates to measuring the length or distance
between the PRBS fields which encodes the track ID
information. This is illustrated in Coker ‘800 Fig. 8. When
Coker states that the “sync correlators 604, 605 act as matched
filters for the dipulse outputs from +PRBS Correlator 602,” this
relates to measuring the length or distance between the PRBS
fields. (see Coker ‘800, col. 5, lines 22–46).
App. Br. 11.
The Examiner responds with additional evidence that Coker’s
+/–synch correlators 604, 605 detect signals corresponding respectively to
the +/–PRBSs, stating:
Coker et al. discloses wherein the servo system further
comprises a set of filters that includes a corresponding filter for
detecting each sequence in the set of sequences in the signal
(col. 6, line 21–22; col. 7, lines 1–7, lines 46–47; and col. 8,
lines 30–40 wherein the correlators +sync correlator 604, and
–sync correlator 605 produces peak signals corresponding to
the +PRBS and –PRBS respectively), and wherein the set of
filters provides a servo track mark signal (fig. 6, timing control
610 open window for the track ID decoder 620 and the PES
decoder).
Ans. 11.
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

14
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive; particularly insofar as being
incommensurate with the scope of the asserted limitations. Claim 10 does
not, contrary to the argument, preclude the servo track function from
measuring a distance between the sequences. Claim 10 requires, expressly
and by incorporation (base claim 9), that the sequences be (i) read by a
single read head to generate a signal and (ii) detected by corresponding
filters to generate a servo track mark signal. Coker teaches the first feature
(i) by disclosing a single transducer (i.e., head) for reading the +/–PRBSs.
See Coker col. 3, ll. 10–12. And, Coker teaches the second feature (ii) by
disclosing that the +/–PRBSs are detected by corresponding +/–synch
correlators 604, 605, respectively, to generate a position error signal. See
Coker col. 8, ll. 22–46.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is sustained.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites that: “the predetermined
set of sequences consists of a first subset of sequences containing no
antipodal sequences and a second subset of sequences that are antipodal to
sequences in the first subset[;] and wherein each sequence in the first subset
is mathematically orthogonal to all other sequences in the first subset.”
Appellants argue that Coker’s mere two PRBS types (+/–PRBS)
cannot be equated to a set and included subsets of sequences, stating:
The cited section includes the statement, “In the preferred
embodiment described here two PRBS are used. The two
sequences are formed by taking a PRBS and that PRBS
inverted, i.e., the PRBS with each 1 inverted to a 0 and each 0
inverted to a 1.” The first and second subsets in claim 11
cannot logically be applied to a set of only two sequences.
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

15
App. Br. 11.
The Examiner responds that each of the +/–PRBS types encompasses
multiple purposes (i.e., subtypes), stating:
Coker et al. discloses herein the predetermined set of sequences
consists of a first subset of sequences containing no antipodal
sequences (fig. 5a, +PRBS STM sequences, +PRBS PES) and a
second subset of sequences that are antipodal to sequences in
the first subset (fig. 5a, –PRBS STM, +PRBS PES) and wherein
each sequence in the first subset is mathematically orthogonal
to all other sequences in the first subset (col. 7, lines 40–45; col.
9, lines 17–25 — wherein the same PRBS can be used such that
each sequence in the first subset (+PRBS) is mathematically
orthogonal to the other +PRBS sequences in the subset).
Ans. 12.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive; particularly insofar as failing
to address the Examiner’s finding as to Coker’s +/–PRBSs serving STM
(servo timing mark) or PES (position error signal) functions. The Examiner
finds that Coker’s +PRBS and –PRBS constitute a set of sequences, the
+PRBS for STM and PES constitute a first subset of no antipodal sequences
(having a +PRBS for STM and +PRBS for PES), and the –PRBS for STM
and PES constitute a second subset of antipodal sequences (having a –PRBS
for STM and –PRBS for PES).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 is sustained.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the set of sequences
is mutually plesiosynchronous.”
Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

16
Appellants argue:
In some embodiments adjacent sequences on the disk are
constrained to be orthogonal under cyclic extension and time
shifts up to a selected parameter which is called “tau.” This
property is called the plesiosynchronous property. This concept
is not taught in Coker ‘800 nor in Leis.
App. Br. 12.
The Examiner responds:
[T]he features upon which applicant relies (i.e., adjacent
sequences on the disk are constrained to be orthogonal under
cyclic extension and time shifts up to a selected parameter
which is called “tau.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
Ans. 13.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive; particularly insofar that the
Examiner neglects the Specification’s express definition of
“plesiosynchronous property.” See Spec. 13, l. 23–14, l. 3. The definition is
exactly as presented by Appellants’ above argument (but even narrower in
scope). Id.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 is not sustained.
REMAINING CLAIMS 14–18 AND 20
Appellants do not present separate patentability arguments for claims
14–18 and 20, but rather solely rely on the arguments for claim 1 and
dependent claims 2–12. App. Br. 12. For the reasons discussed supra, only
Appellants’ arguments for claim 12 are persuasive. Claims 14–18 and 20 do
not recite subject matter similar to that of claim 12.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 14–18 and 20 is sustained.

Appeal 2012-011714
Application 12/653,862

17
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–11 and 13–20 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 12 is reversed.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
TJ