Appeal No. 2001-0294
Application No. 09/004,399
of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Furthermore, the Examiner must produce a factual basis
supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be
common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration, consistent with
the holding in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664,
668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
A review of Sander confirms that the reference relates to a
method and apparatus for retracting the head of a disc drive and
braking the spindle motor in case of power loss. Sander further
discloses (as depicted in fig. 2) that capacitors 60 and 70 which
are charged during normal operation (col. 8 line 64 through col.
9, line 2), start to discharge during power loss and dynamically
brake the motor (col. 10, lines 41-65). We find no reference by
Sander to the use of clock pulses for activating a tach braking
circuit or to the determination of the motor speed.
Davie discloses a circuit for rapid dynamic braking of
polyphase motors. More specifically, as depicted in figure 7,
Davie refers to speed sensing circuit 84 which generates a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007