Appeal No. 1999-0861
Application No. 08/916,413
30), the final rejection (paper number 23) and the answer
(paper number 29) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
1, 2, 4 through 8, 10 through 12, 19 and 20, and we will
reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 13 through
18 and 21, and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3 and
9.
Suganuma discloses an ultrasonic vibration motor that is
controlled to “maximize the start torque” (column 30, line
7 through column 32, line 16).
Appellant argues (brief, page 6) that after the maximized
starting torque is reached in Suganuma, the torque of the
vibration motor is maintained constant, and the vibration
motor is not controlled to reach a target speed.
Appellant’s argument to the contrary notwithstanding,
Suganuma clearly explains that after the vibration motor is
started with the maximum start torque, the motor may be driven
at a constant speed or it may be “accelerated under the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007