Appeal No. 2002-2015 Page 14
Application No. 09/232,138
From our review of Hatchett and Bajorek, we agree with
appellant (brief, page 22) that no motivation has been provided
that would have suggested combining Hatchett and Bajorek in the
manner necessary to meet appellant's claims. The rationale
presented by the examiner (supra) merely sets forth the results
that would be obtained from combining the references, and does
not provide a rationale as to why an artisan would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Hatchett and Bajorek.
Claim 4 recites, inter alia, that each head disk assembly
comprises “a position controller for controlling movement of the
head into a predetermined portion of the disk; and a spindle
motor controller for controlling a spindle motor to a constant
rotation speed.” Hatchett discloses (col. 7, lines 13 and 14)
that “[t]he servo microprocessor controls the spindle motor
speed.” It is further disclosed (col. 7, lines 26-29) that
“[a]ll actuator control signals providing closed loop control of
transducer head positioning and tracking on the disk surface are
generated by the microprocessor.” From the disclosure of
Hatchett, we find that both head position and spindle motor speed
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007