Appeal No. 2002-2027 Page 6
Application No. 09/209,304
220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d760,
771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, we find that Robbins discloses circuitry for comparing a desired velocity to
a measured velocity. Generally, Figure 2 of the reference shows a servo system
wherein a "requested velocity command," col. 3, l. 30, "is compared to the measured
velocity at a summation node 21." Id. at ll. 32-33. More specifically, "[a] velocity error
signal is produced at the node 21 which is proportional to the difference between the
requested velocity and the measured velocity, i.e., the two voltages may be compared
by a difference amplifier circuit." Id. at ll. 31-37. Therefore, we affirm the anticipation
rejection of claim 8.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-13
The examiner asserts, "Stich et al discloses a current driver (47) for the
actuator (21) which the driving current is based on the force constant (factor) (see
col. 6, lines 10-14 and col. 10, line 48 to col. 11, line 49 of Stich et al)." (Examiner's
Answer at 4.) The appellant argues, "[a]lthough the Stich et al. reference mentions a
force constant, the Stich et al reference fails to determine a force constant error signal
based on the velocity error, or one based on the acceleration portion of the velocity
profile. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 10.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007