Appeal No. 1997-1165
Application No. 08/217,184
inclined at an angle relative to the reference scanning line
(supplemental reply brief, page 4; supplemental answer, page
2). In fact, Maeda discloses appellant’s admitted prior art
(Figures 4 and 5). Ohmori discloses the use of a vibration
absorbing material 20a
that absorbs vibrations from spindle motor 20 to thereby
prevent the occurrence of resonance that would normally occur
because of the transmission of vibrations between the motor
and chassis (Figure 5; column 6, lines 50 through 63). Thus,
we agree with appellant’s argument (supplemental reply brief,
page 4) that neither of the applied references teaches or
would have suggested holding the spindle motor in such a
manner that the center axis of vibration of the spindle motor
is inclined at an angle relative to the reference scanning
line.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 6
is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007