Ex Parte Suzuki et al - Page 16


                Appeal No. 2007-0464                                                                                                   
                Application 09/964,874                                                                                                 
                temperature measurements exceeds a predetermined level.  Although there is an explanation on                           
                page 8 of the Examiner’s Answer to the effect that the examiner interprets the first threshold                         
                temperature in Kulakowski as a temperature measured at startup of the disk drive, i.e., the first                      
                temperature measurement required by applicant’s claim 10, no basis has been identified for that                        
                interpretation.  We do not find that either the first threshold temperature or the second threshold                    
                temperature in Kulakowski is disclosed as a temperature measured in Kulakowski at startup of                           
                the disk drive.                                                                                                        
                        Neither Tsutsui nor Tsuchimochi, as applied by the examiner for teachings concerning                           
                resetting the focus or tracking offset, makes up for the deficiency of Kulakowski as discussed                         
                above.  In particular, Tsutsui does not disclose any measuring of the temperature of the disk                          
                drive (FF. 25).   Tsuchimochi’s disclosure about measuring the temperature to see if it is                             
                considered low or high is no more applicable to the claimed invention than Kulakowski’s                                
                disclosure about comparing the measured temperature with a first and a second threshold.                               
                        Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and thus includes all the features of claim 10.  The                            
                deficiencies of the prior art as applied to claim 10 equally apply to claim 11.                                        
                                        The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 12-13 and 26-27                                            
                                        over Kulakowski, and either Takasugi or Davis                                                  
                        Claims 12-13 and 26-27 are directed to the setting at startup and subsequent resetting of                      
                the laser output value of an optical disk drive, in contrast with claims 10-11 which are directed to                   
                the setting and resetting of a focus offset or a tracking offset of the optical disk drive.                            
                        Like claim 10, independent claims 12 and 26 each requires determining whether a                                
                measured temperature of the optical disk drive after startup differs from a measured temperature                       
                of the optical disk drive at startup by more than a predetermined level.  The examiner regards                         



                                                                  16                                                                   

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013