Appeal No. 1998-3348 Page 7
Application No. 08/541,948
nor Boutaghou teaches or suggests varying the disk drive
parameters to minimize the difference between the two
frequency values.” (Reply Br. at 2.)
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, claims 1 and 2
specify in pertinent part the following limitations: "the
spindle motor and the disk are selected to minimize the
difference in a first mechanical resonance frequency value and
a second mechanical resonance frequency value, wherein ... the
first mechanical resonance frequency [is] associated with the
coupling of the pitching mode mechanical resonance frequency
of a no-load spindle motor and the primary mechanical
resonance frequency of one disk to be loaded and the second
mechanical resonance frequency [is] associated with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007