Ex Parte Lee

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 5, 2012

11028678 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/028,678 01/05/2005 Ki-ju Lee 1793.1518 3819
21171 7590 06/06/2012
STAAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
BERTRAM, RYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2187
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KI-JU LEE
____________

Appeal 2010-002760
Application 11/028,678
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC B. CHEN, and JENNIFER S. BISK,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 19-25. Claims 1-18, 26 and 27 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention sets performance parameters for recording or
reproducing data from a medium by (1) grouping stored control tables; (2)
compressing the tables; and (3) decompressing a table corresponding to a
detected medium. See generally Spec. ¶¶ 0006-08. Claim 19 is illustrative:
Appeal 2010-002760
Application 11/028,678

2
19. A method of setting performance parameters for recording and/or
reproducing data to and/or from a medium, comprising:

storing control tables, which determine performance of a disk drive
according to a plurality of media, in a flash memory device;

grouping the control tables into groups according to characteristic data
of the plurality of media;

compressing the control tables according to a multi-control table
compression standard;

and

decompressing a control table corresponding with a medium read by
the disk drive to set disk drive performance parameters for recording and/or
reproducing data to and/or from the medium,

wherein the control data tables [sic]1 comprise a write strategy table
including control data for determining intensity and width of the laser beam
according to an optimal recording power designated for differing disk type
specifications and multiple speeds of disks.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim (US 6,646,965 B1; Nov. 11, 2003), Pereira (US
6,915,374 B2; July 5, 2005 (filed Feb. 19, 2003)), and Dye (US 6,145,069;
Nov. 7, 2000). Ans. 4-8.2

1 We note in passing that no antecedent basis exists for “the control data
tables.”
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 16,
2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 13, 2009; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed November 8, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002760
Application 11/028,678

3
2. The Examiner rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim, Pereira, Dye, and Andrew S. Tanenbaum,
STRUCTURED COMPUTER ORGANIZATION 10-12 (2d. ed. 1984)
(“Tanenbaum”). Ans. 8-9.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kim, Pereira, Dye, and Meriwether (US 5,357,546;
Oct. 18, 1994). Ans. 9-10.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KIM, PEREIRA, AND DYE
The Examiner finds that Kim’s method of setting performance
parameters has every recited feature of representative claim 19 except for
(1) the control data including laser beam width; (2) compressing and
decompressing control tables via a compression standard; and (3) flash
memory, but cites Pereira as teaching feature (1), and Dye for teaching
features (2) and (3) in concluding that the claim would have been obvious.
Ans. 4-6, 11-12.
Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not (1) decompress a
control table corresponding with a medium read by the disk drive, and
(2) store laser beam width as claimed. App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 4-6.
Appellant adds that there is no motivation to combine the cited references.
App. Br. 12.

ISSUES
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 by
finding that Kim, Pereira, and Dye collectively would have taught or
suggested (1) decompressing a control table corresponding with a medium
Appeal 2010-002760
Application 11/028,678

4
read by the disk drive to set disk drive performance parameters, and (2) a
write strategy table including control data for determining laser beam width?
2. Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 19. First, it is undisputed that
Kim stores control tables in memory 601 to set data writing parameters
according to plural media. Ans. 4, 11-12 (citing Kim, col. 5, ll. 51-61;
Tables 1 and 2 (col. 6, l. 47 – col. 7, l. 11)). Nor do we find error in the
Examiner’s finding (Ans. 4) that Kim at least suggests grouping these
control tables according to characteristic data of the media, particularly since
Kim’s Tables 1 and 2 pertain to optimum writing conditions (e.g., power
levels) for writable (CD-R) and rewritable (CD-RW) storage media,
respectively. See Kim, col. 6, l. 37 – col. 7, l. 25.
Although these control tables do not contain laser beam width
information, we nonetheless see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Pereira for that feature (Ans. 11-12), particularly since Pereira sets optical
drive writing strategies that not only define the laser’s pulse power for
writing purposes, but also its width. Pereira, col. 4, ll. 25-27. That Pereira
defines these write strategies based on the type of media (including CD-R
and CD-RW media) and manufacturer (Pereira, col. 4, ll. 8-27)—criteria
similar to that used in Kim noted above—only bolsters the Examiner’s
position in this regard. We therefore see no reason why including control
Appeal 2010-002760
Application 11/028,678

5
data to determine laser beam width in Kim would not be an obvious
enhancement to Kim’s system as the Examiner proposes (Ans. 11-12).
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Dye
merely to show that compressing and decompressing data in flash memory
would have been an obvious enhancement in connection with Kim’s storing
and retrieving control tables. Ans. 5-6, 11. As the Examiner indicates, Dye
teaches decompressing stored compressed data as it is read from memory.
Ans. 11 (citing Dye, col. 2, ll. 42-46; col. 3, ll. 48-50). In view of these
teachings, we see no reason why data associated with Kim’s control tables
could not be compressed for storage, as the Examiner proposes, since
compressing the data would reduce its size, thus saving storage space. And
as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 11), this compressed control table data in
Kim would be decompressed as it is read as taught by Dye to apply the
appropriate performance parameters tailored to a particular type of media
detected by the drive. See Kim, col. 7, ll. 27-67; Fig. 7. This technique
therefore at least suggests decompressing a control table corresponding with
a medium read by the disk drive as claimed.
In short, compressing and decompressing grouped control tables,
where the tables include laser beam width control data as claimed merely
predictably uses prior art elements according to their established functions—
an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007). We therefore, find the Examiner’s reason to combine the
teachings of Kim, Pereira, and Dye supported by articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion.
Appeal 2010-002760
Application 11/028,678

6
We are therefore, not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 19, and claims 20-22 not separately argued with
particularity.
THE OTHER REJECTIONS
For the reasons previously discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 23-25 (Ans. 8-10) not argued separately.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 19-25 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19-25 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).

AFFIRMED

rwk