Ex Parte Bates et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2014

12202854 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALLEN KEITH BATES, NHAN XUAN BUI,
REED ALAN HANCOCK, WAYNE ISAMI IMAINO, and
DANIEL JAMES WINARSKI
____________
Appeal 2012-008640
Application 12/202,854
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK and
CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 12–15 and 21–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Sekiya et al. (US 4,167,692, patented Sept. 11, 1979) and of
claims 31–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sekiya. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-008640
Application 12/202,854

2
Appellants claim a method for controlling the rate of movement of
tape media in a tape storage drive which is driven by an electric motor
having a plurality of motor coils wherein the method comprises
"dynamically activating a plurality of switches for controlling [the] direction
of current through the motor coils during a continuous operation of the
electric motor" (independent claim 12). Appellants also claim an apparatus
(independent claim 24) and a computer program product (independent claim
31) for performing such a method.

A copy of representative claim 12, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
12. A method for controlling the rate of movement of tape media in a
tape storage drive having a fixed power supply voltage, the tape storage
drive including at least one tape reel driven by an electric motor having a
plurality of motor coils, comprising:
receiving a request to adjust one of an angular velocity and an angular
acceleration of the at least one tape reel; and
dynamically activating a plurality of switches for controlling a
direction of current through the motor coils during a continuous operation of
the electric motor, the plurality of switches activated to place the motor coils
in a predetermined configuration to maximize torque or reduce a total back
electromotive force (BEMF) from the motor coils.

In their Appeal Brief, Appellants present arguments directed to
independent claims 12 and 24 (App. Br. 9–14) but do not present additional
arguments specifically directed to dependent claims 13–15, 21–23,1 and 25–

1 In the Reply Brief, Appellants present a new argument directed to
dependent claim 22 (Reply Br. 3). We will not consider this new argument
because it is not accompanied by a showing of good cause explaining why
Appeal 2012-008640
Application 12/202,854

3
30 or separately rejected claims 31–36 (see id. at 14). Therefore, claims 13–
15, 21–23, and 25–36 will stand or fall with claims 12 and 24 of which claim
12 is representative.

Appellants contest the Examiner's finding of anticipation by arguing:
[T]he Sekiya reference neither teaches nor suggests at least the
element of claim 12 that claims "dynamically activating a
plurality of switches for controlling a direction of current
through the motor coils during a continuous operation of the
electric motor" [because] . . . there is no evidence in the Sekiya
reference that states or even suggests that the motors can be
switched dynamically, meaning while moving tape

(Reply Br. 5, see also id. at 4 and App. Br. 11–12).

Appellants' argument is not persuasive. As correctly explained by the
Examiner (Ans. 9–10), series-parallel change-over slide switch SW1 may be
operated to change motor speed (e.g., from a lower play speed to a higher
fast-forward speed) independently of start/stop slide switch SW2 (see, e.g.,
Sekiya Fig. 17, col. 8, ll. 11–41, col. 9, ll. 20–49, col. 17, ll. 39–49). As a
result, Sekiya discloses dynamically activating a plurality of switches via
SW1 for controlling current through the motor coils during continuous
operation of (i.e., without stopping) the electric motor as claimed.

In support of their opposing view, Appellants cite column 8, line 42-
column 9, line 40 of Sekiya and argue "Sekiya illustrates first the record

the argument could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. See Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1476-77 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
Appeal 2012-008640
Application 12/202,854

4
button is pushed, next the stop button is pushed, and then the fast-forward is
pushed . . . [thereby showing] that after an operation, a stop button is
required to be pushed" (App. Br. 11).

We agree with the Examiner that the Sekiya disclosure cited by
Appellants merely exemplifies possible operations and therefore does not
support Appellants' argument "after an operation, a stop button is required to
be pushed" (id.) (Ans. 16). For example, this cited disclosure does not even
address the play operation and accordingly does not support the proposition
that a stop button must be pushed when changing from a lower speed play
operation to a higher speed fast-forward operation.

Appellants also attempt to reinforce their position by contending that
"[t]he text of Sekiya at Column 12, line 36 to Column 13, line 10 clearly
requires the mechanism to stop all motion before changing speed or
direction, therefore, based upon Sekyia [sic] does require the motor to be
stopped for speed changes is a prerequisite condition" (Reply Br. 9).

Appellants' contention lacks persuasive merit. We find no teaching,
and Appellants do not identify any specific teaching, in this columns 12–13
disclosure which "requires the mechanism to stop all motion before
changing speed" (id.). Rather, this disclosure teaches that "the output roller
60 is rotated at the lower speed in the playmode . . . [and] is rotated at the
higher speed in the fast-forward mode" (col. 13, ll. 3–6) with no indication
that the motor is stopped when changing from the lower speed play mode to
the higher speed fast-forward mode.
Appeal 2012-008640
Application 12/202,854

5
For the above stated reasons, Appellants fail to reveal error in the
Examiner's finding that representative claim 12 as anticipated by Sekiya.
We sustain, therefore, the § 102 rejection of claim 12 as well as the § 102
and § 103 rejections of remaining claims 13–15 and 21–36 which stand or
fall with claim 12 as indicated previously.

The decision of the Examiner 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

cdc