Appeal No. 2000-1765
Application No. 08/947,895
player. See Appeal Brief, page 11, lines 12-15. Appellants
argue that Araki does not relate in particular to a self-
compensating dynamic balancer mounted to at least one among
members which are rotated by the rotational force provided by
said spindle motor, the center of gravity of said self-
compensating dynamic balancer being located opposite to that of
said disk with respect to said rotational shaft of said spindle
motor by a centrifugal force generated during rotation of the
disk, thereby to compensate for vibrations due to an eccentric
center of gravity of said disk, as recited in Appellants'
claim 1. See Appeal Brief, page 10, lines 9-16.
The Examiner argues that Araki teaches the use of a self-
compensating dynamic balancer for correcting the balance of a
rotary body when the rotary body exceeds a critical speed. See
Answer, page 4, lines 3-5. The Examiner argues that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of Appellants' invention to modify the disc player of Appellants'
admitted prior art with a self-compensating dynamic balancer as
taught by Araki so that the turntable and disc are balanced when
rotated at high speeds. See Answer page 4, lines 6-12.
On a close reading of Araki, it is revealed that Araki is
not concerned with the problem of internal vibrations generated
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007