Ex Parte Hanks

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 22, 2012

10455651 (B.P.A.I. May. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte D. MITCHEL HANKS
____________

Appeal 2010-003730
Application 10/455,651
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003730
Application 10/455,651

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-37. (App. Br. 3.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. A system wherein a user desires to concurrently
process data to/from different storage media, said system
comprising:

a first buffer for accepting data from a selected first one
of said storage media, said storage media including at least said
first one and a second one of said storage media sharing one or
more common drive mechanisms resulting in said storage
media being alternately available to said user;

a second buffer for accepting data from a data source
different than said first one of said storage media and destined
to be recorded on said second one of said storage media;

a control circuit for loading said first buffer from said
first media faster than said data is being processed by said user,
thereby generating periods of time where data is not being
loaded into said first buffer; and

said control circuit further operative for transferring data
from said second buffer to said second media during said
generated periods.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Murayama (U.S. Patent No. 5,636,314) in view of Arai
(U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0066970). (Ans. 3-5.)

Appeal 2010-003730
Application 10/455,651

3
ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Does Murayama teach or suggest “a second buffer for accepting data
from a data source different than said first one of said storage media and
destined to be recorded on said second one of said storage media,” as recited
in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 14
and 26?

ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion regarding the Examiner’s
rejection of each of the independent claims. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-7) in response to arguments made in the
Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. We concur with the conclusion
reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address certain findings and
arguments below.
Appellant asserts that neither Murayama nor Arai teaches or suggests
“transferring data from a second buffer, which accepts data from a data
source different than said first one of said storage media, to said second
media during said generated periods.” (App. Br. 8-9 (emphasis omitted).)
But Murayama teaches that data is transferred from a plurality of buffers
(206) to one of a plurality of optical disks (4). (Murayama, Fig. 1; col. 4, ll.
28-32.) Moreover, one of the plurality of buffers (206) accepts data from an
Encoding/Decoding Circuit (205) which differs from other storage media
Appeal 2010-003730
Application 10/455,651

4
(e.g., optical disks 4). (Id.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 14, and 26. For the above
reasons, we are also affirming the rejections of dependent claims 2-13, 15-
25, and 27-37, whose merits are not separately argued. In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987). (See App. Br. 10.)

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-37.
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

llw