Ex Parte Ostroverkhov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12907824 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/907,824 10/19/2010 Victor Petrovich Ostroverkhov
62204 7590 03/28/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (LICENSING)
ATTN: Brandon, 59W - 105U
1 RIVER ROAD
SCHENECTADY, NY 12345
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
245268-1 (GELC:0055) 2691
EXAMINER
HUBER, PAUL W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
vivian.brandon@ge.com
rlt@zpspatents.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VICTOR PETROVICH OSTROVERKHOV,
PIERINO GIANNI BONANNI, XIAOLEI SHI, ZHIYUAN REN,
HUA XIA, XUEFENG WANG, and XINGHUA WANG
Appeal2014-005566
Application 12/907,824
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005566
Application 12/907,824
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 12, 14, 16-20, 22, and 24--28, the only
remaining claims pending in the application. Claim 4 is objected to and
indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent form to include the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (Final Act. 6). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a replication and formatting
method and system for bit-wise holographic storage. (Spec. i-f 1 ). Claims 1
and 19, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, are
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of recording data on a holographic disk, comprising:
emitting a plurality of signal beams tmvard a first side of the
holographic disk; and
emitting a plurality of reference beams toward a second side of
the holographic disk such that each signal beam in the plurality of
signal beams substantially overlaps with a corresponding reference
beam in the plurality of reference beams, wherein the first side and the
second side are on opposite sides of the disk, and wherein the
substantial overlap of each signal beam in the plurality of signal
beams with each corresponding reference beam in the plurality of
reference beams results in recording micro-holograms over a plurality
of data tracks in the holographic disk.
19. A system for recording micro-holograms on a holographic disk,
the system comprising:
2
Appeal2014-005566
Application 12/907,824
one or more signal heads configured to transmit a plurality of
signal beams towards a first side of the holographic disk; and
one or more reference heads configured to transmit a plurality
of reference beams towards a second side of the holographic disk,
wherein the first side is opposite from the second side, and wherein
each signal beam of the plurality of signal beams substantially
overlaps with each corresponding reference beam of the plurality of
reference beams to record micro-holograms over a plurality of data
tracks in the holographic disk.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 12, 14, 16-19, 22, 24, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Welles et al. (US 2010/0157773
Al; published June 24, 2010).
Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Welles and either Sigel et al. (US
7,187,481 Bl; issued Mar. 6, 2007) or Liu et al. (US 2002/0015376 Al;
published Feb. 7, 2002).
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Welles and Fujita et al. (US 2008/
0239922 Al; published Oct. 2, 2008).
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Welles, Sigel, and Official Notice.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Welles, Sigel, Official Notice, and
Fujita et al.
3
Appeal2014-005566
Application 12/907,824
ANALYSIS
After consideration of each of Appellants' arguments, we agree with
the Examiner. We refer to and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions as set forth in the Examiner's Answer and in the action from
which this appeal was taken. (Ans. 1-7; Final Act. 2-7). Our discussions
here will be limited to the following points of emphasis.
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Welles discloses "emitting a
plurality of signal beams toward a first side of the holographic disk" and
"emitting a plurality of reference beams toward a second side of the
holographic disk" as recited in independent claim 1?
The Examiner generally relies on Figure 38 of Welles and its
supporting description in paragraphs 161 to 165 to disclose the disputed
limitations. (Final Act. 2). Figure 38 is reproduced below:
Fig. 38
4
Appeal2014-005566
Application 12/907,824
Figure 38 depicts a configuration for preparing a distribution micro-
holographic media from a master holographic media. (Welles i-f 49). The
Examiner finds Welles emits a plurality of signal beams via micro-lens array
3845 and spatial light modulator 3860 toward a first side of the holographic
disk 3810 and emits a plurality of reference beams via micro-lens array 3855
toward a second side of the holographic disk 3810. (Final Act. 2).
Appellants contend Welles discloses that only a single beam is
generated by laser 3820, and that although the beam is split into first and
second light beams 3840 and 3850, which are then passed through a micro-
lens array to focus the light beams into focused points, this is nevertheless a
single beam and "not a plurality of signal beams (i.e., a plurality of separate
and discrete signal beams) and a plurality of reference beams (i.e., a
plurality of separate and discrete reference beams." (App. Br. 6-7; Reply
Br. 2-3). Thus, Appellants contend that "instead of emitting a plurality of
signal beams and a plurality of reference beams (e.g., multiple parallel
discrete beams from a single optical head) as claimed," Welles teaches that a
single beam is split into first and second light beams and focused via a
micro-lens array into two-dimensional focused spots. (App. Br. 7-8; Reply
Br. 3--4).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because they are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. Appellants rely on the
Specification, which describes that "each beam is discrete as it is transmitted
out of the optical head .... " (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2, citing Spec. i-f 34).
However, the claim language does not require that the plurality of beams be
separate and discrete, only that a plurality of beams are transmitted toward a
first or second side of a holographic disk. Appellants may not import
5
Appeal2014-005566
Application 12/907,824
limitations from their Specification into the claims. See CollegeNet, Inc. v.
Apply Yourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("In examining
the specification for proper context [it is improper to] import limitations
from the specification into the claims."). We agree with the Examiner's
findings that the plurality of beams transmitted from the micro-lens array
toward the first and second sides of the holographic disk discloses the
disputed limitations. We therefore are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Welles discloses the disputed limitations.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding Welles discloses "emitting
each of the signal beams from one optical head" and "emitting each of the
reference beams from one optical head" as recited in dependent claims 12
and 14?
Appellants contend because laser 3820 does not "emit more than one
discrete beam," Welles does not teach that a plurality of signal beams or a
plurality of reference beams are each emitted from one optical head. (App.
Br. 9). Appellants contend that only the single beam laser 3820 of Welles
can even feasibly be read as an optical head. (Reply Br. 4--5).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that all the optical elements shown in Figure 38 of Welles
(e.g., elements 3820, 3830, 3840, 3845, 3860, 3855) can be considered part
of a single optical head. (Ans. 7). Such findings are consistent with the
disclosure in Appellants' Specification, which describes optical head 102 as
an "optical, mechanical and electronic system 102 which may include
various optical elements suitable for focusing the parallel signal beams 92 on
master disk 46," optical head 122 as "e.g., a lens or other optical, electronic,
6
Appeal2014-005566
Application 12/907,824
and mechanical components," and optical head 142 as "includ[ing] other
optical components to focus and transmit the beams." (Spec. i-fi-138, 39, and
40). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Welles discloses the disputed limitations.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding Welles discloses "one or
more signal heads configured to transmit a plurality of signal beams toward
a first side of the holographic disk" and "one or more reference heads
configured to transmit a plurality of reference beams toward a second side of
the holographic disk" as recited in independent claim 19?
With respect to independent claim 19, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred for the same reasons as set forth with respect to Issues 1 and
2 discussed supra.
Appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8, 16-20,
22, and 24--28. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of those claims for the same reasons as set forth supra.
7
Appeal2014-005566
Application 12/907,824
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8,
12, 14, 16-20, 22, and 24--28 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8