Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

13840962 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/840,962 03/15/2013 Lin Zhou
136310 7590 11/28/2016
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
PA TENT DOCKETING - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
2200 WELLS FARGO CENTER
90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3901
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
STL16496.00 1339
EXAMINER
ALUNKAL, THOMAS D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2016 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):
PatentDocketing@FaegreBD.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIN ZHOU, JUIL LEE,
DONGMING LIU, and HUAZHOU LOU
Appeal2015-008138
Application 13/840,962
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-18 and 21. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Seagate Technology
(App. Br. 2).
2 Claims 19 and 20 were canceled.
Appeal 2015-008138
Application 13/840,962
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to a method to improve contact detection
between a read/write head and the surface of a storage media disc (Spec.
ii 5).
Exemplary Claim
1. A method of detecting initial contact between a
transducing head and a storage medium, the method comprising:
providing a pulsed input signal to an actuator of the
transducing head;
sampling amplitudes of the input signal;
determining a lock-in amplitude from the sampled
amplitudes;
generating a curve of the lock-in amplitude against varied
heater power; and
determining a turning point of the curve.
The Examiner's Rejections3
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13, 16, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Ohno et al. (US 2008/0204924 Al; publ. Aug. 28,
2008) (Final Act. 3---6).
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 3-5, 10-12, 14, 15,
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ohno (Ans. 2-3).
2
Appeal 2015-008138
Application 13/840,962
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. With respect to claims 1, 2, and 7, we
agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions and adopt them as our
own. However, regarding claims 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 21, we are
persuaded by Appellants' contentions that the Examiner erred.
Independent Claim 1
Based on Appellants' arguments (see App. Br. 7-10 and 14; Reply Br.
1-3), we decide the appeal of claims 1, 2, and 7 on the basis of
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend a "pulsed input signal" implicitly includes an
element of time and repeatability, which infers the signal's amplitude
changes in a limited period of time and does so multiple times, and Ohno
faiis to teach such a puised input to the actuator (App. Br. 7-9). Appeiiants
further argue Ohno does not teach an input signal that begins at a zero
amplitude, goes to a non-zero value, and then returns to a zero value, as
alleged by the Examiner (Reply Br. 1-3). We are unpersuaded of Examiner
error in the rejection by Appellants' contentions. Although Appellants
provide one example of a "pulsed input signal" being a square voltage wave
(Spec. i-f 18), the claims are not limited to a specific pulsed signal pattern
(see Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (particular embodiments appearing in the written description must not
be read into the claim if the claim language is broader than the
embodiment)). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
Appellants' disclosure, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Ohno's
3
Appeal 2015-008138
Application 13/840,962
input signal is applied for a limited period of time and changes multiple
times (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3-5 (citing Ohno i-f 38 and Fig. 6 (heater power
of 78 mW is applied for one tum of the disk, then stepped up multiple times,
to 78mW and 81 mW))), which is considered a "pulsed input signal" pattern
(see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
("[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation during examination.")).
Appellants further contend Ohno does not create a plot with amplitude
against an x-axis of varied heater power, and therefore does not teach
"generating a curve of the lock-in amplitude against varied heater power"
(App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Ohno
teaches a graph containing signal amplitude data for each heater power value
that is applied (Ans. 4--5 (citing Ohno i-f 38 and Fig. 6)). Claim 1 does not
require any specific parameters for presenting the graph of amplitude and
power data, therefore we agree that the broadest reasonabie interpretation of
"generating a curve of the lock-in amplitude against varied heater power"
does not preclude Ohno's graph (i.e., Figure 6) that presents the same data in
a different manner than Appellants' specific example (Spec. i-f 20 and Fig. 4;
see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1369). Ohno further
teaches using the graphed data in the same manner as claimed, i.e., to find
the "turning point" in the data when the read head makes contact with the
disk's surface (Ans. 4--5 (citing Ohno i-f 38)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ohno.
4
Appeal 2015-008138
Application 13/840,962
Dependent Claims 6 and 16
The Examiner finds that Ohno performs "routine mathematical
operations" and that Ohno's "curve" (i.e., Fig. 6) has linear portions until
head/disk contact (Ans. 4-5 (citing Ohno if 37)). However, we agree with
Appellants' contention that Ohno fails to disclose what is encompassed by
"routine mathematical operations," and thus fails to anticipate the limitation
"taking a derivative of the curve, resulting in a further curve" (App. Br. 11-
12; Reply Br. 3) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Ohno.
Dependent Claims 8 and 9
The Examiner finds Ohno' s teaching of improving the signal-to-noise
ratio by removing components whose frequencies are not higher than five
times the rotationai frequency of the disk "suggest[ s] a high sampiing
frequency relative to heater frequency" (Ans. 5 (citing Ohno iii! 37-38)).
We agree with the Appellants' contention that such a "suggestion" of
sampling frequency in Ohno does not anticipate the specific sampling
frequencies claimed, and thus we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Independent Claim 13
The Examiner finds Ohno' s pulsed input signal to the actuator of a
transducer at a specified data track discloses "the select data track being
offset from a single data track of the storage medium previously written to"
(Ans. 6 (citing Ohno iii! 26-30)). However, we are persuaded of Examiner
5
Appeal 2015-008138
Application 13/840,962
error by Appellants' contention that the cited portions of Ohno fail to
mention the selected data track being offset from a single data track of the
storage medium previously written to (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 4--5)
(emphasis added). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 13, and claims 17 and 21 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Ohno.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7. We, however, do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b)rejectionofclaims 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, and21. The Examiner has
withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 3-5, 10-12, 14, 15,
and 18 (Ans. 2-3).
DECISION4
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7. We reverse
the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 21.
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-IN-PART
4 Although we reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17,
and 21, this is not an indication that the Board views the claims as patentable
without further consideration of the Ohno reference. We leave it up to the
Examiner to consider whether a rejection of claims 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is warranted in light of the teachings of Ohno's
amplitude sampling method (i.e., Ohno i-f 38 and Fig. 6) and data transform
method (i.e., Ohno i-f 48 and Fig. 9).
6