Appeal No. 1998-1540
Application No. 08/317,390
OPINION
We reverse both rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being, on their face,
improper.
The rejection of the claims under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 purports to
be based on the enablement clause in that certain subject matter in the claims was not
described in the specification in such a way as to enable the skilled artisan to make and
use the invention.
In particular, the examiner states that the disclosure of the elected species of Figure
2, described at pages 14-27 of the specification as the first embodiment, fails to describe
or enable the combination of elements recited in claims 4, 7 and 11-13. The examiner
specifically cites the limitations of “detecting the phase difference between an oscillation
output and a reference clock...” and “detecting a speed difference between the rotation
speed of the disk and the desired rotation speed...” (answer-page 4).
The specification clearly discloses the claimed elements. See, for example, page
28 of the specification, second paragraph, which teaches controlling the rotation of the
spindle motor “on the basis of the phase difference between a reproduced clock
signal and a reference clock signal.” Further, the subject matter is relatively simple enough
for the artisan engaged in such arts that we do not find enablement to be any problem.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007