Appeal No. 1999-0861
Application No. 08/916,413
control maximizing the output” (column 30, lines 52 through
56). In other words, “the desired drive state may be suitably
switched or varied in continuous manner” after the vibration
motor is driven to its maximum start torque (column 30, lines
60 and 61). As an aside, we note that claims 1, 7, 19 and 20
on appeal do not preclude a “constant” torque. For these
reasons, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 8, 10 through 12,
19 and 20 is sustained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 13 through 18
and 21 is reversed because we agree with appellant’s argument
(brief, page 8) that Suganuma does not teach driving the
vibration motor to first and second maximum start torques.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 9 is
reversed because we agree with appellant’s argument (reply
brief, page 2) that Suganuma neither teaches nor would have
suggested “a storage unit which stores data indicating the
relationship between drive frequency, torque and speed.”
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2,
4 through 8 and 10 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007