Ex parte OPHEIJ et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 1998

08074265 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 1998)

Attorney docket no. PHN 13,236B.1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
This opinion (1) was not written for publication and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 32
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
In re WILLEM G. OPHEIJ
and JOZEF P.H. BENSCHOP
____________
Appeal No. 95-2003
Application No. 08/074,2651
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, FLEMING, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.
BACKGROUND
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 23-26, 33, and 37. The examiner objects to
claims 29-32 and 34-36 as depending from rejected claims.
(Examiner's Answer at 8.) No other claims are pending. We
reverse.
The subject matter of the invention is a device for
optically reading information from or writing information onto a
record carrier having a plurality of information tracks (e.g. a
Appeal No. 95-2003 Page 2
Application No. 08/074,265
CD-ROM). Scanning spots, which are focused onto the surface of
the information tracks, read and write information. Over the
course of time, a scanning spot may become out of alignment with
an associated track (tracking error) or the focal point of the
scanning spot may become out of focus, which in turn distorts the
shape of the scanning spot (focus error). Tilt of the record
carrier with respect to the scanning device will defocus the
scanning spots (tilt error).
The claimed invention has plural scanning spots, one
scanning spot for each information track on the record carrier.
A series of photodetectors associated with the plural scanning
spots receive radiation from the information tracks via the
scanning spots and convert the radiation into detection signals.
The invention associates error detection circuits with the
photodetectors, each of which derives from the detection signals
either a focus error signal or a tracking error signal. A tilt
control signal may be derived by combining at least two focus
error signals. Independent claim 23 (emphasis added) illustrates
the claimed subject matter:
23. A device for simultaneously optically scanning a
plurality of the information tracks in an information
plane of an optical record carrier, said device
comprising:
a radiation source for supplying a series of
scanning beams;
an objective system for focusing the scanning
beams to form a corresponding series of scanning spots
Appeal No. 95-2003 Page 3
Application No. 08/074,265
We rely on a translation (attached) for our2
understanding of this reference.
focused on the information plane, each positioned on a
respective information track to scan such track;
a series of photodetectors for respectively
receiving radiation produced from the respective tracks
by the scanning spots and converting such radiation
into corresponding respective detection signals;
a plurality of error signal generating circuits
respectively coupled to respective ones of said
photodetectors for deriving respective error signals
from the detection signals produced by the respective
photodetectors, each error signal being either (i) a
focus error signal indicative of focus error of the
associated scanning spot with respect to the track
being scanned thereby, or (ii) a tracking error signal
indicative of tracking error of the associated scanning
spot with respect to the track being scanned thereby;
the respective error signals relating to respective
ones of said tracks; and
signal combining means coupled to at least two of
the error signal generating circuits for combining the
error signals produced thereby so as to derive a
control signal for control of at least one of (1) focus
of each of the scanning beams, (2) tracking of each of
the scanning beams, and (3) tilt of the record carrier
relative to the scanning beams.
The examiner relied on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Russell 4,074,085 14 Feb. 1978
Rees et al. (Rees) 4,998,234 5 Mar. 1991
Hashimoto et al. (Hashimoto) 5,155,718 13 Oct. 1992
Inoue JP 1-144235 6 June 19892
Specifically, the examiner rejected claims 23 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Russell. The examiner
rejected remaining claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
Appeal No. 95-2003 Page 4
Application No. 08/074,265
view of combinations of Russell and the following references:
Inoue for claim 37, Hashimoto for claims 24 and 26, and Rees for
claim 33. All pending claims ultimately depend from claim 23.
DISCUSSION
The examiner found that Russell's adders 116 (Figs. 2 & 4)
teach claim 23's "signal combining means coupled to at least two
of the error signal generating circuits for combining the error
signals produced thereby so as to derive a control signal." We
disagree. Russell's adders 116 combine detection signals, not
error signals as claimed. The device of claim 23 processes
detection signals to produce error signals and then combines the
error signals. Thus, Russell does not teach "signal combining
means coupled to at least two of the error signal generating
circuits for combining the error signals produced thereby so as
to derive a control signal."
Since the cited prior art does not teach or suggest a
limitation in claim 23, we reverse the rejection of claim 23.
Inoue, Hashimoto, and Rees do not teach or suggest the missing
limitation so we reverse the rejection of claims 24-26, 33,
and 37 as well.
Appeal No. 95-2003 Page 5
Application No. 08/074,265
DECISION
The examiner's rejections of claims 23-26, 33, and 37 are
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-2003 Page 6
Application No. 08/074,265
CORPORATE PATENT COUNSEL
U.S. PHILIPS CORP
PATENT DEPT
580 WHITE PLAINS RD
TARRYTOWN NY 10591