Ex Parte Tajima et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 24, 2017

14743133 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2017)

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.
14/743,133 06/18/2015 Hideharu TAJIMA 70404.2645/ha 1100
54072 7590 11/28/2017
SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA
C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
BUTCHER, BRIAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2017 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):
JKEATING@KBIPLAW.COM
u spto @ kbiplaw. com
epreston @ kbiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIDEHARU TAJIMA, ATSUSHI ETOH, GO MORI,
MASAKI YAMAMOTO, TETSUYA HAYASHI,
TOSHIHIKO SAKAI, HIROHISA YAMADA, and
TAKAYUKINAKA
Appeal 2017-003684
Application 14/743,1331
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R MacDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 2 and 3, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha is identified as the real party in interest. See Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-003684
Application 14/743,133
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to an optical information recording
medium, reproduction apparatus, and reproduction method. Spec., Title.
Claim 2, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below for reference
(emphasis added):
2. A read-only optical information recording medium on
which a content is recorded as a pit group formed such that an
average length Tm [nm] of a minimum mark length and a
minimum space length becomes shorter than an optical system
resolution limit of a reproduction apparatus in which a
numerical aperture of an objective lens is 0.85 and a
wavelength of a reproduction light is 405 [nm], wherein
as a reading speed for reproducing the content, reading
speed information designating a reading speed in a range from 2
x (4.92 x Tm/149) [m/s] to less than (10000/60) x 2 x n x
(24/1000) [m/s] is recorded,
reproduction light output information designating a
reproduction light output corresponding to the reading speed
indicated by the reading speed information is recorded, and
a frequency of a reading clock corresponding to the
reading speed indicated by the reading speed information is an
n multiple (n is an integer of 2 or more) of a frequency of a
reading clock corresponding to a reading speed for reading the
pit group formed such that the average length of the minimum
mark length and the minimum space length is not less than the
optical system resolution limit,
said read-only optical information recording medium
comprising:
a first area in which the content is recorded; and
a second area in which the reading speed
information is recorded as a pit group formed such that
an average length of the minimum mark length and the
minimum space length becomes longer than the optical
system resolution limit of the reproduction apparatus,
2
Appeal 2017-003684
Application 14/743,133
the second area being disposed in a position closer
to an inner periphery side than the first area; and
the content, the reading speed information, and the
reproduction light output information being recorded in
accordance with a 1-7RLL modulation method.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting over claim 1 of US Patent 9,111,553 B2 in view of Eto (US
2010/0083295 Al; Apr. 1, 2010) and Schuller (US 2007/0002697 Al; Jan.
4, 2007). Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41,37(c)(l)(iv). We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because “[cjlaim
1 of commonly owned U.S. Patent No. 9,111,553, Schuller et al., and Eto et
al., either alone or in combination with one another, do not teach or suggest
the unique combination and arrangement of features recited in Appellant’s
claim 2.” Br. 5—6. Particularly, Appellants argue “there is no [] portion of
Eto et al. which teaches or suggests a 1-7RLL modulation method as
required by Appellant’s claimed invention,” as “the ‘l-7pp’ as indicated in
[Eto’s] modulation is not the same as, or equivalent to, a 1-7RLL
3
Appeal 2017-003684
Application 14/743,133
modulation method as required by Appellant’s claimed invention.” Br. 7,
emphasis omitted.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds, and
Appellants do not challenge, that Eto discloses the same modulation as
recited in the claim: “the ‘BD-Compliant’ region indicated in Figure 2B of
Eto ... is described as being modulated according to ‘ l-7pp’ which is
known in the art under the name (1, 7) RLL Parity-Preserve, Prohibit
Repeated Minimum Transition Runlength Code.” Ans. 4. The Examiner’s
findings are reasonable because the modulation method of both Eto and
Appellants’ claims is used for recording on blu-ray formatted optical discs
(i.e., “BD”). See Spec. Tflf 89—90, Eto 1 67. Additionally, we note Eto
discloses “[t]he present embodiment assumes that the modulation
regulations for the information to be recorded in the super resolution region
and normal resolution region are both based on a 1-7 encoding scheme,” and
Eto further teaches “it goes without saying that no particular problem occurs
if different modulation regulations are observed.” Eto 1 84. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that Eto teaches or suggests recording in accordance with
the 1-7RLL modulation method, as claimed. See Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 4.
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in finding “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to modify Claim 1 of Patent No.
9, 111, 553,” in light of the teachings of Eto, “to provide where ‘the being
recorded in accordance with a 1 - 7RLL modulation method’” as claimed.
Final Act. 5—6. We have reviewed Appellants’ other arguments, but we do
not find them persuasive of error. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 2 and 3 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
4
Appeal 2017-003684
Application 14/743,133
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2 and 3 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
5