Ex Parte Raaymakers

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 5, 2009

10509453 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 5, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEROEN ARNOLDUS LEONARDUS RAAYMAKERS
____________

Appeal 2009-003872
Application 10/509,453
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: October 5, 2009
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and KARL D. EASTHOM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-003872
Application 10/509,453

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18, and 19 (Br. 5).1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellant invented a tilt control device. A multi-dimensional
actuator emanating an optical recording/reproducing beam corrects for a
tilted or curved optical disc recording surface. “[F]ocus control voltages
Uf1 and Uf2” (Spec. 5:22) respectively applied to “split focus coils C1 and
C2” (id.:6) (Fig. 2) control the focus and tilt of the actuator 11; thereby
tilting the beam and/or moving the actuator in a longitudinal z direction
toward the recording surface for focusing. (Spec. 1:1-20; Spec. 4:30 to 5:23;
Abstract).2
Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. A tilt control device for controlling a radial tilt of a recording surface
of an optical disc with respect to an optical recording/reproducing beam,
said tilt control device comprising:
control means for generating two focus controlling outputs; and
actuating means for receiving said two focus controlling outputs for
controlling a focusing state and the radial tilt of the optical
recording/reproducing beam utilizing said received two focus controlling
outputs, wherein said control means determines a radial tilt value based on a

1 Appellant’s Brief (“Br.”) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) are
referenced here.
2 This description of Appellant’s disclosed invention constitutes factual
findings.
Appeal 2009-003872
Application 10/509,453

3
differentiation of focus control values obtained at different radii of said
optical disk.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:

Kusano US 5,206,848 Apr. 27, 1993
Motosyuku US 5,602,566 Feb. 11, 1997
Hajjar US 5,627,808 May 6, 1997
Nagasato US 6,181,670 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Morimoto US 6,266,301 B1 Jul. 24, 2001
Park US 6,714,496 B2 Mar. 30, 2004
(filed Oct. 1, 2001)

The Examiner rejected, as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 12 and 14 based on Park, Kusano, and Hajjar;
Claim 3 based on Park, Kusano, Hajjar, and Morimoto;
Claims 2, 11, and 15 based on Park, Kusano, Hajjar, and Nagasato;
and
Claims 5 and 16 based on Park, Kusano, Hajjar, and Motosyuku.
ISSUES
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 12 and 14
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 13-17) focus on the limitations
recited in claim 1 and assert a failure of Park to teach focus control.
Accordingly, these claims will be treated as standing or falling with claim 1.
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987); 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, the first issue before us is:
Appeal 2009-003872
Application 10/509,453

4
Did Appellant demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Park and Kusano collectively teach “two focus controlling outputs for
controlling a focusing state and the radial tilt of the optical
recording/reproducing beam utilizing said received two focus controlling
outputs,” as set forth in claim 1?
Claims 2, 11, and 15
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 17-19) assert a failure of Nagasato to
teach split coils. Appellant does not specify any particular claim in this
group. Accordingly, these claims will be treated as standing or falling with
claim 11. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Therefore, the second issue before us is: Did Appellant demonstrate that the
Examiner erred in finding that the Nagasato teaches a “split [focus] coil
arrangement” as set forth in claim 11?
Claims 5 and 16
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 19-20) assert a failure of Motosyuku
to teach calculating “a mean disc tilt value” as set forth in claims 5 and 16.
Therefore, the final before us is: Did Appellant demonstrate that the
Examiner erred in finding that the Motosyuku teaches “a mean disc tilt
value” as set forth in claims 5 and 16?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “‘On appeal to the Board,
an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient evidence of
prima facie obviousness . . . .’” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2009-003872
Application 10/509,453

5
Under § 103,
“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” . .
. . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,
for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting Kahn, 441
F.3d at 988).

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Park teaches a tilt calibrating system which adjusts for the tilt of a
bent disc 1a or 1b (Figs. 6A-B). If the disc is “bent upwards” (col. 9, l. 51) a
regulation plate 80 (and bent disc 1a thereon) “descends in the ‘D’ direction”
(col. 9, l. 56) (Fig. 6A) due to rotation of a tilt motor 40 (and a spiral slant
cam 60) responding to a drive signal MD. On the other hand, if the disc is
“bent downwards” (col. 9, l. 67), the plate 80 (and bent disc 1b thereon)
“descends in the ‘U’ direction” (col. 10, l. 5) (Fig. 6B). (Col. 9, l. 50 to col.
10, l. 14).
2. The drive signal MD ultimately depends upon first and second
focus error output times FET1 and FET2 (see Park, col. 5, l. 7 to col. 6, l.
31). These focus error output times are initially calculated based on
reference values for a normal disc and ascending and descending movement
of the optical pick up unit 20 irradiating optical beams onto the disc (Park,
col. 7, ll. 3-40).
3. Park states:

The tilt phenomenon causes an optical axis of the optical
pickup unit to be slant with respect to the disc recording surface, and
Appeal 2009-003872
Application 10/509,453

6
aberration to occur in a focusing beam, with a result that a frequency
characteristic of light, in particular, a phase characteristic in this case
is degenerated. Accordingly, a reproduction performance is
remarkably lowered. Also, in particular, information is not
reproduced from a disc of which the crooked state of the disc
recording surface is severe.
(col. 1, ll. 41-49; emphasis added).
4. To overcome this focusing aberration due to such bent discs (see
col. 2, ll. 9-35), Park’s “regulation plate 80 ascends and descends according
to rotation of the spiral slant cam 60, to thereby rotate the turntable” (col. 4,
ll. 37-39), based in part on focus error signals FET1 and FET2 (col. 3, ll. 12-
26). Figs. 6A and 6B depict tilting of a disc occurring in conjunction with
the perpendicular axis at the disc center rotating through tlt1 and tlt2 angles,
to thereby adjust the disc (1a or 1b) surface to be perpendicular to the
optically axial direction of beams irradiating from pickup unit 20 (based on z
axis (ascend/descend) movement of plate 80 due to the cam 60) (col. 9, ll.
35-65, see also Fig. 5).
5. Motosyuku discloses calculating a difference between a beginning
and ending tilt value angle for a hand-held information processor to facilitate
scrolling of its display unit (col. 7, ll. 32-49; Abstract).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 12 and 14
Appellant argues (App. Br. 14) that Park’s signals FET1 and FET2 do
not constitute “focus controlling outputs” but are “merely calibration
measurements of an ascending and descending focus error output time.”
Appellant reasons (Br. 15) that “[w]hile Park et al. may call FET1 and FET2
first and second focus error output times, these signals are in no way used to
control focus, their only purpose being to control the tilt motor.”
Appeal 2009-003872
Application 10/509,453

7
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As Appellant notes (id.),
these “focus error output” signals (FF 2) (emphasis added) control the tilt
movement (FF 1-4). As the Examiner found (Ans. 9), “[w]hen the tilt of the
disc is changed, the focal point is also changed. Thus, by indirectly
controlling focus, FET1 and FET2 are focus controlling outputs.”
Appellant does not refute the Examiner’s finding with necessary argument
or evidence.
In other words, Park’s system controls tilt with this tilt movement
resulting in z axis movement (i.e., ascending and descending movement) of
the optical disc 1a or 1b relative to the optical pick-up 20, thereby adjusting
the focus to render the optical beam perpendicular to a bent disc surface (FF
1-4). (Tilting the disc center axis through angles tlt1 and tlt2 further
evidences control of the focus via implicit z axis movement of the disc (the
disc pivots about an axis through its center on an arc) (see FF 4)). This tilt
movement occurs in response to focus error output signals, FET1 and FET2
(FF 2) (emphasis added), as Appellant acknowledges (Br. 15). During the
tilt movement, a spiral slant cam causes one edge of the disc regulation plate
80 to “descend[] in the ‘D’ direction” or “descend[] in the ‘U’ direction” (FF
1).3 Correcting for the tilt in this manner corrects an “aberration” in the
“focusing beam” caused by a “degenerated” “phase characteristic” (FF 3)
(emphasis added).
Appellant’s disclosed focus voltages similarly also adjust for tilt and
relative z direction movement in terms of focusing (supra note 2). While
Appellant’s system may adjust these two beam movements independently

3 In addition, prior to the tilt control, the pick up unit ascends and descends
relative to the disc surface to control focus of the beam (see FF 2).
Appeal 2009-003872
Application 10/509,453

8
(see id.), claim 1 does not require independent control (nor does it
specifically recite z axis movement). Park’s system, employing a cam and
rotating the disc through tilt angles, controls tilt and a focusing state (z-axis
movement) for a (bent or other) disc relative to the pick-up, as the Examiner
generally reasoned (Ans. 9-10, FF 1-4). Such control satisfies the limitation
in claim 1 of an “actuating means for receiving said two focus controlling
outputs for controlling a focusing state and the radial tilt.”
Appellant argues (Br. 16-17) that “Hajjar et al. does not teach
correcting the tilt of the optical beam with respect to the optical disc,” but
“[r]ather, Hajjar et al. teaches compensating for any tilt.” The Examiner
(Ans. 4) applied Hajjar to teach a “control means or processor [that]
determines a radial tilt value based on a differentiation of focus control
values obtained at different radii of said optical disc . . . .” The Examiner
relied upon Kusano “to include the concept of tilting the beam instead of the
disc” (Ans. 4). Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s application of
Kusano’s teachings to Park’s system as modified by Hajjar. As such,
Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate error in the Examiner’s findings
with respect to Park, Kusano, or Hajjar.
For the reasons described above, Park teaches the disputed limitations
of claim 1.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 4, 6,
8-10, 12, and 14 which were not argued separately and therefore fall with
claim 1. Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987); 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 2, 11, and 15
Appeal 2009-003872
Application 10/509,453

9
Appellant argues that Nagasato’s driving coil assemblies 112 and 114,
each including a “‘focusing coil’,” “‘tracking coil’,” “‘radial tilt coil’,” and a
“‘tangential tilt coil’” (App. Br. 18) (quoting Nagasato, col. 8, l. 59 to col. 9,
l. 3), are not split coils because “it appears that each of the coil assemblies
112 and 114 have a plurality of independent coils, each receiving its own
driving current” (id).
Appellant’s factual assertions, accepted as accurate, fail to
demonstrate error in light of the argument presented. That is, Appellant’s
claim 11 recites “a split coil arrangement . . . [with] focus and tilt controlling
outputs being supplied to respective coils of said split coil arrangement”
(emphasis added). In other words, each coil receives its own respective
current. This interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s disclosed
invention (Fig. 2; supra note 2). As such, Appellant has not demonstrated
any patentable distinction between Nagasato’s split coils and the coils
recited in claim 11. Claims 2, 11, and 15, argued together as a group, are of
similar scope in terms of the arguments presented.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 2, 11, and 15.
Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572 ; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 5 and 16
The Examiner (Ans. 9) (citing Motosyuku col. 7, ll. 32-50), found
that Motosyuku teaches a mean disc tilt value. Appellant (Br. 20) responds
as follows: “[M]erely reading this section of Motosyuku et al., it should be
apparent that there is no mean tilt value determined or stored in Motosyuku
et al. Rather, an actual tilt value is stored in a register.” The Examiner (see
Ans. 10) fails to address this argument.
Appeal 2009-003872
Application 10/509,453

10
As Appellant argues (Br. 20), Motosyuku does not appear to teach “a
mean disc tilt value” at the column relied upon by the Examiner (see FF 5)
and as set forth in claims 5 and 16. As such, Appellant has “overcome [the]
rejection by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness . . . .’”
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-86. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5 and 16.
Claim 3
Appellant relies upon arguments for claim 1 (Br. 17) to show error in
the rejection of claim 3 based on the added reference to Morimoto.
Therefore, as Appellant has not demonstrated Examiner error in the rejection
of claim 1, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 is also sustained. Nielson,
816 F.2d at 1572; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
CONCLUSION
Appellant did not demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Park and Kusano collectively teach “two focus controlling outputs for
controlling a focusing state and the radial tilt of the optical
recording/reproducing beam utilizing said received two focus controlling
outputs,” as set forth in claim 1. Appellant did not demonstrate that the
Examiner erred in finding that the Motosyuku teaches a “split [focus] coil
arrangement” as set forth in claim 11. Appellant did demonstrate that the
Examiner erred in finding that the Motosyuku teaches “a mean disc tilt
value” as set forth in claims 5 and 16.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14,
15, 18, and 19. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5 and
16.
Appeal 2009-003872
Application 10/509,453

11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ke

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510