Appeal No. 1998-3409
Application No. 08/525,152
This is being interpreted as shifting.” Id. We disagree with the examiner.
The examiner does not rely upon the teachings of Mitsuhashi to teach the above
claim limitation. Therefore, Mitsuhashi does not remedy the deficiency in Park. Since the
combination of Park and Mitsuhashi does not teach or suggest the invention as recited in
claim 1, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-4.
With respect to independent method claim 5, appellant argues that Park does not
teach or suggest controlling the velocity of the drum motor according to the switching
signal. (See brief at page 12.) We agree with appellant. The examiner maintains that
Park teaches the use of the head switching signal H S/W which is used to control the
velocity. But, the language of claim 5 recites “controlling a head switching operation by
varying the velocity of a drum motor according to the head switching signal.” While Park
states that the head switching signal is used to control the speed (see col. 4, line 61 - col.
5, line 3), we do not find that the head switching signal is input directly to the servo
controller 15 to control velocity/speed. From our review of Park, Park teaches that the
head switching signal is an output of the servo unit 15 which is input to the mono-multi
signal generating circuit 14. Park is silent as to the use of the speed to control the head
switching operation according to the head switching signal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007