Appeal No. 1996-2199
Application 08/191,060
We sustain the rejection of claim 29 for basically the same
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 28.
Claims 21 and 23 are argued separately by appellant as
a single group. Appellant argues that Ohi does not teach the
step of increasing the frequency of the motor after the motor
has been initially slowed [brief, pages 15-16]. We view
Figure 5 of Ohi as being time independent so that the order of
decreasing and increasing frequency is simply a function of
what happens to temperature. Ohi’s Figure 3 confirms that the
speed control circuit operates irrespective of the direction
that the temperatures are changing. Appellant also argues
that Ohi does not teach the claimed demand for use of the disk
drive in determining speed selection. We consider a demand
for use signal to be the same as the disk read signal
discussed above. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 21 and 23.
Claims 24 and 27 are argued separately by appellant as
a single group. These claims recite features which we have
considered above with respect to other claims. We sustain the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007