Appeal No. 96-1209
Application 08/168,805
35 U.S.C. 103, we will also sustain these rejections.
Claims 1 and 17 specifically recite that the time period
is at least 90msec. While appellant argues that Comerford
discloses no such specific time period, and we agree, there is
nothing critical about this number. The critical thing is to
set a time period which is not so long that the disk drive
collides with the floor, etc., and not so short that a slight
vibration might set off the control means unnecessarily. The
choice of 90msec would appear to be an obvious choice, based
on the particular heights one might conclude the disk drive is
in danger of falling from.
Turning now to the rejection of claim 5, appellant argues
that Comerford’s processor does not perform the combined tasks
of (1) through (5) required by claim 5. While it is not clear
whether appellant is relying on any particular task, it
appears to us that Comerford clearly computes a net
acceleration, compares it with a selected acceleration
(Comerford determines whether the measured acceleration is
within a range of predetermined accelerations), inherently
measures a duration that the acceleration exceeds a
predetermined acceleration (column 4, lines 11-15), compares
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007