Ex Parte Masuda et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 24, 2010

10470433 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 24, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YOSHIYASU MASUDA and TAKASHI SASAKI
_____________

Appeal 2009-003695
Application 10/470,433
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR.,
and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-003695
Application 10/470,433

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to evaluating the accuracy
of a wobble signal at least based on the jitter amount of the wobble signal
and when the jitter measurement deviates from a range of set values, the
system control part changing the reading speed of the optical recording
medium. See Spec. 7:20–8:26.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. An optical writing device comprising:
a wobble signal generation mechanism configured to generate a
wobble signal from an electric signal outputted from an optical pickup;
an evaluation mechanism configured to evaluate an accuracy of
the wobble signal generated by said wobble signal generation
mechanism;
a controller configured to interrupt, in performing writing to an
optical disk, a writing operation when the accuracy of the wobble signal
evaluated by said evaluation mechanism is deviated from a
predetermined range; and
a jitter measurement mechanism configured to measure a jitter
amount of the wobble signal,
wherein said evaluation mechanism evaluates the accuracy of the
wobble signal at least based on the jitter amount of the wobble signal
measured by said jitter measurement mechanism.
Appeal 2009-003695
Application 10/470,433

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Horie US 6,128,273 Oct. 3, 2000
Tsukihashi US 6,496,458 B2 Dec. 17, 2002
(filed Dec. 6, 2000)
The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Tsukihashi in view of Horie.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether Tsukihashi in view of Horie teaches the
limitation of: “a jitter measurement mechanism configured to measure a
jitter amount of the wobble signal, wherein said evaluation mechanism
evaluates the accuracy of the wobble signal at least based on the jitter
amount of the wobble signal” as recited in claim 1.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Horie to show that wobble jitter can be relied
upon to determine the accuracy of the wobble signal (Ans. 6). Appellants
argue, inter alia, that nothing in Horie’s Figure 12 suggests that the wobble
amplitudes are pertinent in evaluating the accuracy of a wobble signal (App.
Br. 9). We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Horie’s Figure 12, at
best, shows results of a measurement of 3T jitter for different wobble
Appeal 2009-003695
Application 10/470,433

4
amplitudes and no wobble (col. 25, ll. 63-65). Nothing in Horie’s Figure 12
teaches or suggests evaluating the accuracy of the wobble signal based on
the jitter amount of the wobble signal.
For the reasons articulated supra, we will reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and for similar reasons the rejections of claims 3, 4, 9,
11, and 12.

CONCLUSION
Tsukihashi in view of Horie does not teach the limitation of: “a jitter
measurement mechanism configured to measure a jitter amount of the
wobble signal, wherein said evaluation mechanism evaluates the accuracy of
the wobble signal at least based on the jitter amount of the wobble signal.”

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12 is
reversed.

REVERSED

babc

OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314