Appeal No. 1996-2199
Application 08/191,060
only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider the rejection first with respect to claims
1, 2 and 4-9 which nominally stand or fall together [brief,
page 4]. With respect to representative, independent claim 1,
the examiner essentially determines that Ohi specifically
teaches all the features of claim 1 except for the
semiconductor substrate and the use of the motor in a computer
disk drive environment. The examiner asserts that
semiconductor drive circuits on a substrate were well known
and that brushless DC motors such as taught by Ohi were known
to be used in computer disk drives [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellant argues that the relationship between
temperature and frequency control as recited in claim 1 sets
forth a hysteresis relationship which is not taught or
suggested by Ohi [brief, pages 8-10]. The examiner responds
that this hysteresis relationship does not appear within the
claimed invention [answer, pages 5-6].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007