Ex Parte Sasaki et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 8, 2009

11039007 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 8, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte TAKASHI SASAKI, MUNETOSHI MORIICHI, MITSUYUKI
BAMBA, and YOSHIYASU MASUDA
____________________

Appeal 2009-001566
Application 11/039,0071
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided:2 June 8, 2009
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Sony Corporation.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-001566
Application 11/039,007

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 19 and 25-293. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claimed invention is a recording apparatus comprising a laser
driver, a laser, and a pulse generator. The laser driver generates a driving
pulse corresponding to the data that is to be recorded. The driving pulse
includes a first recording power level portion, a second recording power
level portion provided before the first recording power level portion, and a
third recording power level portion provided after the first recording power
level portion. The laser forms a recording data row on a recording medium
using laser beam irradiation. The laser provides a first, second, and third
recording power level proportional to the first, second, and third recording
power level portions, wherein the second and third recording power levels
are larger than the first recording power level. The pulse generation
controller controls the width of at least one of the second or third recording
power level portions so that the pulse width of each is varied corresponding
to the length of either a pit or a land to be formed in the recording medium
(Spec. 5).
Claim 19 is exemplary:
19. A recording method, comprising:
generating a laser beam to form a recording data row on a recording
medium, said data row being formed of pits and lands; and
modulating the laser radiation to have a reproducing power level, a
first recording power level, a second recording power level larger than the
first recording power level to be generated before the first recording power

3 Claims 1-14 are canceled. Claims 15-18 and 20-24 are allowed.
2
Appeal 2009-001566
Application 11/039,007

level, and a third recording power level larger than the first recording power
level to be generated after the first recording power level,
wherein at least one of a width of said second and third recording
power levels is controlled so that the width is varied in accordance with a
length of at least one of a pit and a land to be formed.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yokoi US 5,732,062 Mar. 24, 1998

Claims 19 and 25-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Yokoi.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed August 3, 2007) and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed November 16, 2007) for their respective details.

ISSUE
Appellants argue that Yokoi fails to disclose a recording apparatus
having a driving pulse that includes a first, second, and third recording
power level, wherein “at least one of a width of said second and third
recording power levels is controlled so that the width is varied in accordance
with a length of at least one of a pit and a land to be formed” (App. Br. 9,
Reply Br. 1-2). Appellants argue that variations of the width of the cooling
pulses C and Cr do not equate to varying the widths of the second and third
recording power levels (App. Br. 9, Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner finds that it is well established in the art that the pulse
width of the laser output is manipulated based on the mark length and spaces
between the marks (Ans. 4).
3
Appeal 2009-001566
Application 11/039,007

The principal issue in the appeal before us is:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Yokoi
teaches a recording apparatus having a laser driver that generates a driving
pulse that includes a first, second and third recording power level, wherein
the width of either the second or third recording power level portions is
varied in accordance with a length of at least one of a pit and a land?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, the invention concerns a recording
apparatus including a laser unit within pickup 1 that includes an objective
lens 2 used at an output end of the laser beam, and an optical system for
irradiating a disk recording surface with the laser beam having a driving
pulse to form a recording data row on a recording medium, wherein the data
row includes pits and lands (Fig. 1, Spec. 10).
2. The driving pulse generator 21 generates a first pulse in
accordance with recording data, a second pulse to be combined with the
leading edge of the first pulse, and a third pulse to be combined with the
trailing edge of the first pulse (Fig. 2, Spec. 18-19).
3. The second (first overdrive) pulse and the third (end overdrive)
pulse are added to the EQEFM signal wherein the respective pulse periods
L1 and L2, are set in accordance with the pit length or the land length
immediately before and after each pulse which is detected by the pit/land
length detecting circuit 31 (Fig. 3, Spec. 22-23).
4
Appeal 2009-001566
Application 11/039,007

Yokoi
4. Yokoi teaches a recording pit (5T mark) formed by laser pulses
having a first power level Af, second power level Ar, and a third power level
Br. The second and third power levels (13 mW) are larger than the first
level (11 mW) (Fig. 7; col. 12, ll. 33-67).
5. Yokoi teaches that the width of the tail cooling pulse Cr or the
rear cooling pulse C is changed based on a preceding mark length 3T (Fig.
23; col. 27, ll. 2-21).
6. Yokoi teaches that heating pulses Ar and Br which define the
front and rear edges of a record mark, respectively, are followed by multiple
cooling pulses C and Cr (Fig. 7; col. 13, ll. 3-10).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 102 is established when a single
prior art reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency
each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v.
IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We
determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the
basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim must then be
compared with the prior art.
5
Appeal 2009-001566
Application 11/039,007

In an appeal from a rejection for anticipation, the Appellants must
explain which limitations are not found in the reference. See Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[W]e expect that the
Board's anticipation analysis be conducted on a limitation by limitation
basis, with specific fact findings for each contested limitation and
satisfactory explanations for such findings.")(emphasis added). See also In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Yokoi teaches a recording pit (5T mark)
formed by laser pulses having a first power level Af, second power level Ar
and a third power level Br (FF 4, Ans. 3). The second and third power levels
(13 mW) are larger than the first level (11mW) (FF 4, Ans. 3). The width of
pulse Cr and pulse C is changed based on a preceding mark length 3T (FF 5,
Ans. 3). The Examiner further finds that it is well established in the art that
pulse width of the laser output is manipulated based upon the pits and lands
(Ans. 4). The Examiner focuses upon the fact that marks 3T and 5T (shown
in Yokoi Fig. 17) are recorded by manipulating the pulse width W of each of
the power levels Af, Ar, B, and Br, thus meeting the claimed invention (Ans.
4).
Independent claims 19 and 25 both require that “at least one of a
width of said second and third recording power levels” is controlled or
generated by a laser driver “so that the [pulse] width is varied in accordance
with a length of at least one of a pit and a land to be formed.”
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous because
the Yokoi reference fails to disclose that at least one of a width of said
6
Appeal 2009-001566
Application 11/039,007

second and third recording power levels is controlled so that the width is
varied in accordance with a length of at least one of a pit and a land to be
formed, as required by independent claims 19 and 25 (App. Br. 9, Reply Br.
2). Appellants highlight the distinction between the heating pulses (Af, Ar,
B, and Br) and the cooling pulses (Cr and C) (App. Br. 9, Reply Br. 2).
Appellants argue that the width of the heating pulses Ar and Br, rather than
the width of cooling pulses C and Cr, must be controlled for Yokoi to read
upon the claimed invention (App. Br. 9, Reply Br. 2).
We agree with Appellants’ characterization of Yokoi. It is apparent
from Figures 7, 14, 17, 22, and 23 that the width of multiple cooling pulses
C and Cr may vary; yet the heating pulses, Ar and Br, which form the front
and rear edges of the a record mark, respectively, do not vary in width (FF
6). As a result, Yokoi does not teach all the limitations of claims 19 and 25.
Therefore, because Appellants have established error in the
Examiner’s rejection, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 19 and 25, as well as claims 26-29 dependent from claim 25, under
35 U.S.C. § 102.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Yokoi
teaches a recording apparatus having a laser driver that generates a driving
pulse that includes wherein a first, second and third recording power level,
wherein the width of at least one of the second and third recording power
level portions is varied in accordance with a length of at least one of a pit
and a land.
7
Appeal 2009-001566
Application 11/039,007

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 25-29 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD

OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314

8