Appeal No. 2001-0294
Application No. 09/004,399
In view of our analysis above and in light of the
specification as a whole, we find that the use of “clock pulses”
to activate the tach braking circuit is sufficiently defined and
would reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of
this limitation. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 1-21 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Turning to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims, we
note that the Examiner relies on the teachings of Sander for
retracting disk heads and braking the motor using back-emf of the
motor and the time delay provided by an RC timer (final
rejection, page 1). The Examiner further relies on Davie for
detecting speed signals and determining the speed of the motor as
an alternative design choice that may be substituted for the time
delay of Sander (final rejection, pages 1 & 2). Finally, the
Examiner adds teachings from Aoshima that relate to comparing
clock pulses from a pulse generator with pulses from a tachometer
to determine speed (final rejection, page 2).
Appellants argue that the claimed method step of “activating
a tach braking circuit to brake the motor by using clock pulses”
is neither taught nor suggested by the cited prior art (brief,
page 6). Additionally, Appellants assert that Davie discloses an
analog circuit (speed sensing circuit 84) which, even if combined
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007