Ex Parte Musto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

11042893 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
11/042,893 01/25/2005 James J. Musto 0656/73637 7855
23432 7590 03/27/2013
COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
20th Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10112
EXAMINER
LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2013 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 JAMES J. MUSTO
____________

Appeal 2010-010735
Application 11/042,893
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24 and 27-31. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-010735
Application 11/042,893

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an optical recording
apparatus and method for recording in optical recording formats using
multiple modulation levels (Spec. 1:4-6).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. An improvement to an optical recording apparatus comprising (i)
a light source, (ii) a first modulator for modulating an intensity of a light
beam, (iii) a formatter, and (iv) a modulation interface, said improvement
including:

an electro-optic modulator added in an optical path between the light
source and the first modulator, to regulate a power of the light beam
supplied to the first modulator,

wherein the formatter is adapted to supply a baseline power signal to
the modulation interface and supply a formatted data signal of three or more
modulation levels to the first modulator;

wherein the modulation interface is adapted to supply a power control
signal to the electro-optic modulator, and the electro-optic modulator
regulates the power of the light beam supplied to the first modulator to a
power level corresponding to the power control level,

wherein the modulation levels include a first beam intensity
corresponding to a first pit length, a second beam intensity corresponding to
a second pit length, and a third beam intensity whereby a pit is not formed,

wherein at least one of the first pit length and the second pit length
corresponds to less than 3T, and

wherein the apparatus is adapted by supplying the formatted data
signal directly from the formatter to the first modulator, without going
through the modulation interface.

Appeal 2010-010735
Application 11/042,893

3
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24,
and 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Masuhara
(US 6,414,935 B1, July 2, 2002) and Belser (US 5,400,313, March 21,
1995).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Masuhara discloses all the limitations of
Appellant’s claimed invention except for a formatted data signal having
three or more modulation levels (Ans. 5). The Examiner then finds Belser
discloses a formatted data signal having three modulation levels: A, B, and
C (Ans. 5; Belser, col. 9, ll. 55-62).
Appellant contends the power signals A, B, C, and D of Belser are not
supplied to an acoustic-optical modulator nor are they used by the acoustic-
optical modulator to modulate an intensity of a light beam. Rather, the
power signals A, B, C, and D of Belser are “generated by the modulator
252” to control the laser diode (App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 5). We agree.
Appellant’s claims recite the formatter supplies a baseline power
signal to a modulation interface and supplies a formatted data signal to the
first modulator. Belser uses the power signal from the modulator to the laser
driver (see Fig. 7). Masuhara, however, supplies the power signal to the
acoustic-optical modulator (see Fig.16). Thus, as Appellant contends, an
ordinarily skilled artisan would not have viewed Belser’s power signals A,
B, C, and D, used for controlling the laser diode, as suitable or relevant for
controlling the acoustic-optical modulator of Masuhara (App. Br. 23).
Appeal 2010-010735
Application 11/042,893

4
Thus, we agree with Appellant that the combination of Masuhara and
Belser would not result in Appellant’s claimed invention.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18,
21, 22, 24, and 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18,
21, 22, 24, and 27-31 is reversed.

REVERSED

peb