Appeal No. 1996-2199
Application 08/191,060
4-6, 8 and 9, but we do not sustain the rejection with respect
to claim 7.
Dependent claim 28 is argued separately by appellant.
Claim 28 recites that a disk read signal must be present
before control at the first frequency is authorized as the
temperature falls below the second threshold. Appellant
argues that Ohi does not disclose that the motor is for a disk
drive so that there is no suggestion of using a disk read
signal in the selection of frequency operation [brief, pages
11-12].
The examiner has taken the position that it was known
to the artisan that motors such as disclosed by Ohi were known
to be used in the control of disk drives. We agree that the
artisan would have appreciated that the Ohi controller circuit
pertained to the control of disk drive motors. Thus, we find
that the broad use of the Ohi controller in a disk drive
control environment would have been obvious to the artisan.
We note
that the first frequency in Ohi (30KHz) corresponds to
operation of the motor under normal circumstances or in the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007