Appeal No. 1998-2513
Application No. 08/171,427
operative device. However, the circuitry of Figure 3 uses a capstan speed instruction as
input to error detector 21. The evidence suggests that whatever intermediate processing
that may be necessary would not have required anything beyond routine skill in the art.
(For example, Takeda discloses changing the form of a signal -- from frequency to voltage
-- by means of element 5 in Figure 1.) Appellant has not shown the rejection of claim 1 to
be in error.
Claim 5 (independent)
We are unpersuaded by appellant’s arguments in support of claim 5. Supplying the
speed instruction from tracking error to speed error detector 21 (instant Figure 3) would do
that which is alleged to be missing: that the “speed controller produces a degree of speed
control by comparing the variable speed instruction output from the tracking controller with
the actual capstan speed.” (Brief, page 9.) Since we agree with the examiner’s finding
that the combined teachings would have suggested supplying a speed instruction, derived
from tracking error, to speed error detector 21 as shown in prior art Figure 3, we disagree
that the argued limitation is missing from the teachings of the prior art.
Claims 10-13 and 15 (claim 12 independent)
Appellant’s arguments in support of claims 10-13 are based on an implied
allegation with which we disagree. We agree that in Takeda “the output of the control
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007