Appeal No. 1998-3369
Application No. 08/546,295
Claims 1 through 3 and 6 through 8 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsu in view of
Onodera.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Nakatsu in view of Onodera and
Touchton.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 10,
mailed January 29, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 9, filed October 28, 1997) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 8.
Nakatsu discloses determining the position of the
actuator, applying a reference voltage based on the position
to move the actuator to a first predetermined position, and
then applying a second reference voltage to move the actuator
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007