Appeal No. 1998-0204
Application 08/501,542
Sampietro require a microprocessor to control the actuator arm
for information access. It would be logical and natural to
expect such a microprocessor, in a Sampietro type disk
assembly, to incorporate the bucking coil control logic.
Accordingly, we find that Sampietro suggests the same, or at
least a reasonable equivalent of, the “control means” recited
in Appellants’ claims.
In view of the above, we find that Sampietro
anticipates the apparatus of claim 1. Additionally, Sampietro
acknowledges the need to have adequate latching power while
conserving on energy to the actuator arm motor when releasing
the actuator arm. (See column 2, line 64 to column 3, line
4.) This is especially so with portable computers, as
acknowledged by Appellants (specification page 3, line 26 to
page 4, line 11). Thus, even if Sampietro did not anticipate
the apparatus of claim 1, it would have been obvious to
operate Sampietro’s actuator motor and bucking coil at the
same time (i.e., simultaneously), because any wasted overlap
of the control signals would waste precious battery power in a
portable computer. Accordingly, we find, in the alternative,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007