Ex parte DUNN et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 15, 1998

08080353 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 15, 1998)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte PAUL F. DUNN
and RANDALL C. BAUCK
_______________
Appeal No. 95-2439
Application 08/080,3531
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 5 and 9 through 12. Claim 13 has been
determined by the examiner to contain allowable subject matter
and is not before us on appeal.

1 Application for patent filed June 21, 1993.
Appeal No. 95-2439
Application No. 08/080,353
2
The invention pertains to a recording system which is
adaptable to multiple supply voltages and capable of
dynamically adjusting the performance of the system in
response to variations in the operating power supply voltage.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A recording system comprising:
a disk drive for operation from a supply potential;
a reset circuit coupled to receive an input voltage and a
reference potential, said reset circuit for comparing said
input voltage against said reference potential and for
generating a reset signal disabling said disk drive whenever
said input voltage is less than said reference potential;
an adapter circuit including means for configuring said
disk drive in first and third modes of operation compatible
with a first predetermined operating voltage, and second and
fourth modes of operation compatible with a second
predetermined operating voltage, said first predetermined
voltage being larger than said second predetermined voltage,
said adapter circuit generating said input voltage as a
function of said supply potential;
a logic device coupled to said adapter circuit for
selecting a first set of seek parameters utilized by said disk
drive in response to said first mode of operation and for
selecting a second set of seek parameters utilized by said
disk drive in response to said second mode of operation, said
logic device monitoring said supply potential when said disk
drive is configured in said third and fourth modes of
operation such that when said supply potential drops from said
first predetermined operating voltage and said disk drive is
configured in said third mode of operation said logic device
selects said second set of seek parameters and outputs a
control signal to said adapter circuit to adapt said input
voltage compatible with said second predetermined operation
voltage; and
Appeal No. 95-2439
Application No. 08/080,353
3
when said supply potential rises from said second
predetermined operating voltage and said disk drive is
configured in said fourth mode of operation, said logic device
selects said first set of seek parameters and outputs said
control signal to said adapter circuit to adapt said input
voltage compatible with said first predetermined operating
voltage.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Morimoto et al. 4,636,905 Jan. 13, 1987
(Morimoto)
Osafune 4,931,889 Jun. 5, 1990
Claims 1 through 5 and 9 through 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over Osafune and Morimoto.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We affirm.
While we understand the disclosed invention to differ
from that of the applied references, individually or in
combination, it is our view that the claimed subject matter is
broad enough to be unpatentable over the combined references.
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with
appellants’ statement at page 5 of the brief, all claims stand
together. Accordingly, we will consider only representative
independent claim 1.
The examiner takes the position that Osafune discloses
first and second modes optimizing a seek circuit in a
Appeal No. 95-2439
Application No. 08/080,353
4
recording/reproducing apparatus wherein a switch selects one
of a battery and a commercial power source. As the examiner
recognizes, Osafune fails to disclose the claimed third and
fourth modes wherein the power supply is monitored to detect a
voltage drop (or voltage increase). Therefore, the examiner
relies on Morimoto. While the examiner’s explanation of
Morimoto’s disclosure, from the bottom of page 3 to the top of
page 4 of the answer, is less than elucidating, Morimoto does
disclose monitoring to detect voltage drops and increases and
adapting to these drops and increases by prohibiting or
permitting certain functions such as read/write. The examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Osafune
with the adaptive modes of Morimoto in order to switch to the
appropriate voltage level necessary for optimal performance
and that it would have been obvious to maintain the first and
second modes of Osafune as being nonadaptive since the
omission of an element and its function, where the remaining
elements perform the same function as before, involves only
routine skill in the art.
A prima facie case for the obviousness of the subject
matter of claim 1 appears to have been made, with the examiner
setting forth the deficiencies of the individual references
and the motivating factors for combining the teachings of the
Appeal No. 95-2439
Application No. 08/080,353
5
references in a manner to overcome the individual deficiencies
and to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Appellants make several arguments against the examiner’s
position.
We agree with appellants, at page 6 of the brief, when
they contend that Osafune teaches a conventional disk drive
system which is preset to one of two power modes of operation
and that Osafune does not disclose monitoring the power supply
voltage to detect voltage drops nor does the reference
disclose adapting the drive’s reset and seek parameters
responsive to the changing voltage levels.
We also agree with appellants, at pages 6-7 of the brief,
that Morimoto relates to a voltage monitoring system which
monitors the voltage of the power source at two levels and
that the system stops the supply of current to the write and
erase circuits when the power supply drops below an upper
level so that whenever the power supply drops below the upper
level but remains above a lower voltage level, the drive is
used to perform read operations only.
However, appellants argue [brief, page 7] that the prior
art does not suggest “adjusting the reset and seek parameters
of the disk drive dynamically in accordance with variations in
power supply potential and a selected mode of operation” but
Appeal No. 95-2439
Application No. 08/080,353
6
that the instant invention “features 5 VOLT ADAPTIVE and the 3
VOLT ADAPTIVE modes of operation wherein the current operating
supply potential is monitored and the drive’s reset and seek
parameters are adjusted dynamically to optimize the
performance of the disk drive.”
While the arguments might have some merit with regard to
the instant disclosed invention, the subject matter of
independent claim 1 reveals nothing about a “5 VOLT ADAPTIVE”
and a “3 VOLT ADAPTIVE” mode nor does it reveal anything about
“dynamically” adjusting reset and seek parameters.
If appellants are suggesting that the applied references
are silent with regard to suggesting adjusting reset and seek
parameters at all, we disagree. While the disk drives of the
prior art clearly adjust reset and seek parameters, as broadly
claimed, the teaching by Morimoto of stopping write and erase
circuits at one level and permitting only read operations
until a lower voltage level is reached would appear to be a
fair teaching of a logic device for monitoring supply
potential in third and fourth modes of operation so that when
the potential drops from a first operating voltage (the upper
level voltage in Morimoto) and the disk drive is in the third
mode of operation (write and erase circuits inoperable in
Morimoto), the logic device selects the second set of seek
Appeal No. 95-2439
Application No. 08/080,353
7
parameters (i.e., don’t seek to write any data) and outputs a
control signal to adapt the input voltage compatible with the
second predetermined operating voltage (i.e., below the upper
limit voltage in Morimoto, the write and erase circuits are
controlled so as to be inoperable).
Further, when the supply voltage rises from the second
predetermined operating voltage (i.e., from below the upper
level voltage, rising to the upper level voltage in Morimoto)
and the disk drive is configured in a fourth mode of operation
(i.e., write and erase circuits operable, along with the read
function, in Morimoto), the logic device selects the first set
of seek parameters (i.e., write to the chosen location in
Morimoto) and outputs a control signal to adapt the input
voltage compatible with the first predetermined operating
voltage (i.e., the voltage is at the upper level voltage in
Morimoto).
Appellants argue, at page 7 of the brief, that their
invention affords “great flexibility” because of the “fixed
and adaptive modes.” But, as explained by the examiner, such
a combination of modes is attained by the combination of
Osafune (fixed modes) and Morimoto (adaptive modes, as broadly
claimed).
Appeal No. 95-2439
Application No. 08/080,353
8
We further disagree with appellants that there is no
motivation, from the prior art, “to adjust the drive’s reset
and seek parameters in response to the current available power
supplied to the disk drive unit” [brief, top of page 8].
While the applied references may not teach the adjustment
disclosed and intended by appellants, as was pointed out
supra, the adjustment, as broadly claimed, is believed to have
been suggested by Morimoto.
Since we have responded to all of appellants’ arguments
and the arguments do not convince us of any error in the
examiner’s rejection of the claimed subject matter set forth
in independent claim 1, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 9 through 12 under 35
U.S.C. ' 103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
' 1.136 (a).
AFFIRMED
Appeal No. 95-2439
Application No. 08/080,353
9
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Jerry Smith ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Michael R. Fleming )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-2439
Application No. 08/080,353
10
John C. Scott
1700 Lincoln Street
Suite 3500
Denver, Colorado 80203