11011033 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2012)

Ex Parte Shin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 16, 2012

11011033 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 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. 11/011,033 12/15/2004 Jung-mook Shin 1793.1532 2333 21171 7590 07/16/2012 STAAS & HALSEY LLP SUITE 700 1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER SIMPSON, LIXI CHOW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/16/2012 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 JUNG-MOOK SHIN and MYUNG-SU HAN ____________ Appeal 2010-004345 Application 11/011,033 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004345 Application 11/011,033 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-17, and 19-21 (App. Br. 4). Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, and 18 were cancelled (Id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary Claim 1 follows: 1. A method of determining an optimum recording speed for a medium in a disc drive device, the method comprising: determining if disc characteristic information recorded on the medium is registered in the disc drive device, the disc characteristic information includes a manufacturer code and a type code; and controlling a maximum recording speed and a target optimum power control power for recording on the medium according to the type code of the medium when the disc characteristic information is not determined to be registered in the disc drive device, wherein when the type code of the medium is determined to be enhanced, the maximum recording speed for the medium is set to a predetermined set recording speed. . The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Halloush (U.S. 2005/0083811 A1) in view of Shimoda (U.S. 6,381,202 B1) (Ans. 3-5). The Examiner rejected claims 6, 9, 11-17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Halloush in view of Shimoda and Sato (U.S. 2003/0185123 A1) (Ans. 5-9). Appeal 2010-004345 Application 11/011,033 3 FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer (Ans. 3, et seq.). ISSUE Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in concluding that Halloush teaches or suggests “controlling a maximum recording speed and a target optimum power control power for recording on the medium according to the type code of the medium when the disc characteristic information is not determined to be registered in the disc drive device,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 6, 15, and 21? ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion regarding the Examiner’s rejection of the claims. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 3-11) in response to arguments made in Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address certain findings and arguments below. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 because Halloush does not teach “controlling a maximum recording speed and a target optimum power control power for recording on the medium according to the type code of the medium when the disc Appeal 2010-004345 Application 11/011,033 4 characteristic information is not determined to be registered in the disc drive device” (App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted)). In support of their contention, Appellants argue that “in claim 1, when the ATIP information recorded on the optical disc is not recorded in firmware of the optical disc drive, it is determined whether the M, T1, or T2 codes have been changed, and different recording velocities are applied according to the M, T1, or T2 codes” (Id.). But Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 because claim 1 makes no mention of M, T1, or T2 codes or a determination of whether any code has been changed (Claim 1). And as noted by the Examiner, Halloush mentions an identification code on a disc which corresponds to the claimed disc characteristic information and a portion of the identification code which corresponds to the claimed type code (Ans. 9-10; citing Halloush, Fig. 2 and ¶ [0020]). Moreover, as explained by the Examiner, Halloush discloses that a write strategy for controlling the recording speed and other parameters is selected if the type code matches an entry in a write strategy table on the disc drive device but the entire disc characteristic information does not match (Id.). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We also find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of the other independent claims on appeal (i.e., claims 6 and 15) because the arguments set forth by Appellants for those claims are the same as the arguments for claim 1 that have already been addressed above (App. Br. 14-15). We also find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of the dependent claims on appeal because Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for them (Id.). Appeal 2010-004345 Application 11/011,033 5 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-17, and 19-21 as obvious. 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 tkl