11029499 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2012)

Ex Parte Noda

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 29, 2012

11029499 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2012)

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. 11/029,499 01/06/2005 Ryusuke Noda 040894-7148 1797 9629 7590 06/29/2012 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) 1111 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20004 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, NIGAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2012 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 RYUSUKE NODA ____________ Appeal 2009-015273 Application 11/029,499 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015273 Application 11/029,499 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Invention Appellant’s invention can reproduce optical disks with less noise associated with disk rotation and without discontinuity in video and sound even when a read error occurs. See Spec. 1:4-12. Claim 1 is reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A disk reproducing apparatus for reproducing a video and sound signal recorded on an optical disk, comprising: reproducing device that reproduces the video and sound signal recorded on the optical disk in a predetermined low-speed mode; first retry device that retries reading of the video and sound signal of a sector in which a read error occurs in the predetermined first speed mode when the read error of the video and sound signal occurs during the reproduction of the optical disk by the reproducing device; second retry device that increases a rotational speed of the optical disk to retry reading of the video and sound signal of a sector in which a read error occurs in a predetermined second speed mode when the read error of the video and sound signal occurs during the retry of the reading of the video and sound signal by the first retry device, and reproducing control device that returns the rotational speed of the optical disk to the original rotational speed to reproduce the video and sound signal recorded on the optical disk in the predetermined first speed mode when the video and sound signal of a sector in which a read error occurs can be read by the retry of the reading of the video and sound signal by the second retry device. Appeal 2009-015273 Application 11/029,499 3 The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Ikeda US 6,804,183 B2 Oct. 12, 2004 (Mar. 7, 2001) Yada US 7,177,528 B1 Feb. 13, 2007 (filed Aug. 2, 2000) THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yada and Ikeda. Ans. 3-6. THE CONTENTIONS Regarding claim 1, Appellant argues that Yada does not disclose a second retry device that increases a rotational speed of the disk to retry reading of the disk in a second speed when an error occurs during retry by the first retry device. Br. 5.1 In particular, Appellant contends that, when error handling occurs in one of the four operation modes, retrying occurs with a predetermined disk rotation speed in the specific mode (Br. 5) and that the operation mode switch depends on whether the computer or camera is being used and not on whether an error has occurred during retry (Br. 5- 6). Also, while Appellant acknowledges that Ikeda teaches switching between a high speed mode and normal mode depending on the number of errors, Appellant contends that Ikeda fails to increase the disk’s rotational speed when an error occurs. Br. 6. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 6, 2009 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 12, 2009. Appeal 2009-015273 Application 11/029,499 4 ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Yada and Ikeda teaches a second retry device that increases an optical disk’s rotational speed to retry reading of the video and sound signal of a sector in which a read error occurs in a predetermined second speed mode when the read error occurs during the retry by the first retry device? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent part, a second retry device that increases an optical disk’s rotational speed to retry reading of the video and sound signal of a sector when the read error occurs during the retry by the first retry device. While the first retry device, second retry device, and the reproducing control device are recited as separate “devices,” we note at the outset that Appellant maps these “devices” to the same components. See Br. 3 (mapping each of these devices to spindle motor 4, servo circuit 5, and microcomputer 11). Based on this understanding, we find these recited devices to be the same structure configured to perform all the recited functional limitations. Yada does not teach or suggest a device that increases disk rotational speed to retry reading of a video and sound signal sector when a read error occurs during retry by the first retry device. Yada teaches various operational modes, including a first operational mode in which a disk rotational speed is set to be low and a second operational mode where the disk rotational speed is set to be high. See Abstract. Yada also teaches switching between these operational modes. Col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 5; col. 6, Appeal 2009-015273 Application 11/029,499 5 l. 64–col. 7, l. 2; col. 7, ll. 35-43; Figs. 7-9. Yada further states that there are different operation modes in which disk rotation speeds differ and each includes an error handling mode. Col. 5, ll. 32-48. However, switching disk rotation speed in Yada is in response to switching operation modes, which further sets an error handling time. Col. 6, l. 64–col. 7, l. 2. Yada describes an example of a hard disk drive (HDD) having four operation modes and mode-switching for the drive. Col. 11, ll. 55-60; col. 12, ll. 19–col. 13, l. 9; col. 13, ll. 21-26. The HDD has use modes (i.e., a home mode and a portable mode) as well as two operation modes (i.e., Information Technology (IT) and Audio Visual (AV)), which are summarized as: (1) HIT (Home IT) Mode; (2) PIT (Portable IT) Mode; (3) HAV (Home AV) Mode; and (4) PAV (Portable AV) Mode. See id. Yada teaches that the disk’s rotation speed is suitable for specific types of data (e.g., non-continuous versus continuous, computer data versus moving image data) and is set in each mode based on the data type. See col. 12, ll. 25–col. 13, l. 20. Yada further teaches that these operation modes can be switched based on a “SET AV CONFIGURATION” command containing values for “bit0” and “bit1,” which indicates whether to operate the drive in home or portable mode as well as AV or IT mode. Col. 13, ll. 21-25, 28-32, 45-51 (Table 2); col. 13, l. 66–col. 14, l. 24; col. 15, l. 52 – col. 16, l. 2. These passages in Yada do not suggest increasing the disk rotational speed to retry reading of a video and sound signal sector when a read error occurs during retry by the first retry device as recited. Yada also teaches or suggests the disk rotation speed remains constant during error handling (e.g., retrying reading sectors when a read error occurs) and has no suggestion of increasing the disk rotational speed to retry Appeal 2009-015273 Application 11/029,499 6 reading of a video and sound signal sector when a read error occurs during retry by the first retry device. Yada discusses error handling within each mode and setting an error handling time based on “bit0” in some instances (see col. 15, ll. 1-51; col. 20, ll. 43-60; col. 21, ll. 29-41; col. 22, ll. 9-20, 50-54), but does not discuss or suggest increasing the disk rotation speed to retry reading of a sector when a read error occurs during retry. Thus, while Yada teaches switching operation modes from a low disk speed to a high disk speed, Yada does not suggest increasing the disk rotational speed to retry reading of a video and sound signal sector when a read error occurs during retry by the first retry device. While not relied upon by the Examiner to teach the recited second retry device (see Ans. 4), we also agree with Appellant (Br. 6) that Ikeda teaches and suggests retrying reading of a signal sector when a read error occurs by decreasing the disk’s rotation speed (e.g., lower speed) rather than increasing the disk rotation speed as recited. See col. 13, ll. 60-63; col. 14, ll. 1-3, 14-17; Fig. 13. Ikeda further discusses setting the device to a high speed mode when processing continuous data or when the disk needs to be used at a high data transfer rate (col. 12, ll. 21-32), but there is no discussion of increasing the data rate when a read error occurs during retry by a first retry device. See also col. 12, l. 33 – col. 13, l. 5 cited by the Examiner (Ans. 4, 8). Ikeda therefore does not cure the deficiencies found in in Yada. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the rejection of: (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 2 and 7 which recite limitations commensurate in scope; and (3) dependent claims 3-6 for similar reasons. Appeal 2009-015273 Application 11/029,499 7 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7 under § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7 is reversed. REVERSED gvw