Appeal No. 1995-5010
Application 08/116,261
344 (CCPA 1968). We agree with the Examiner that, to the
extent claimed, the “frequency control loop” (claim 12, line
3) and the “automatic gain control loop” (claim 12, line 3)
are shown by circuit 50 and 51a of Takahashi in figure 5 as
controlling the speed of the ultrasonic motor 23. The
reference voltage at element 55 in Takahashi can be switched
from one setting to another to achieve a desired speed (column
7, lines 23 to 25 and column 8, lines 57 to 60]. This meets
the limitation: “a switching unit ... to second output” (claim
12, lines 8 to 11). We further agree with the Examiner that
to broadly add a limiter, such as element 69 of Sakurai, to
the output of the feedback control loop 51a of Takahashi would
have been obvious because the purpose of such a limiter in
Takahashi would have been the same as in Sakurai as well as in
Appellant’s device, i.e., to limit the amplitude of the
feedback signal below an undesirable speed limit in Sakurai to
avoid damage to the ultrasonic motor, or to match a particular
tissue selectivity in Appellant’s device. Therefore, we
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 12 over Takahashi
and Sakurai.
In conclusion, the decision of Examiner rejecting Claims
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007