Appeal No. 1997-3964
Application No. 08/319,658
Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over appellant’s admitted prior art in
view of Fukuyama and either Gotoh and Kitami.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5 is
sustained, and the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 4 and 6
through 9 is reversed.
Appellant has provided a detailed analysis of Teranishi
(Brief, pages 9 through 13). Excerpts of such analysis of
Teranishi are as follows:
Teranishi relates to a device for controlling
the location of various components in a VTR. As
shown in Fig. 2, the device comprises a mode
selecting circuit 41 to 45, a read only memory (ROM)
46, a motor control circuit 47, a comparator 48,
position detecting switches 49a and 49b, and a
loading latch 50 . . . .
The ROM 46 inputs the specified mode signal D .
1
. . and outputs a motor control signal D , a
3
comparison signal D , and a particular mode signal D3
4 5
. . . . The motor control signal D is input by the
3
motor control circuit 47, and such circuit 47
rotates the motors M and M . . . . As shown in1 2
Fig. 4, if the motor control signal D equals 8
3
(1000), the control circuit 47 rotates the motor M1
in a forward direction. Similarly, . . . the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007