Ex parte KANO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 25, 2000

08305076 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 25, 2000)

Application for patent filed September 13, 1994,1
entitled "Floppy Disk Drive With PWM Control," which claims
the foreign filing priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of
Japanese Patent Application 05-242455, filed
September 29, 1993.
- 1 -
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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte IKUO KANO

Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,0761

HEARD: February 8, 2000

Before BARRETT, FLEMING, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 2 -
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 6-14.
We affirm-in-part and enter a new ground of rejection.
BACKGROUND
The invention is directed to a floppy disk drive which is
capable of suppressing voltage of a counter electromotive
force generated by self-induction of an internal coil of a
stepping motor, reducing the noises generated in a power line,
and thereby preventing irregular rotation of the stepping
motor.
Claim 6 is reproduced below.
6. A floppy disk drive apparatus comprising:
a head carriage for carrying a head for magnetically
recording data on a floppy disk;
a stepping motor for moving said head carriage in a
radial direction with respect to said floppy disk;
an exciting current supplying circuit for supplying
an exciting current to said stepping motor to cause said
stepping motor to rotate by a predetermined rotation
angle in accordance with a step signal applied to said
exciting current supplying circuit; and
a control circuit for controlling said exciting
current supplying circuit, when the exciting current
supplied to said stepping motor is cut off at a
termination of an enable excitation time interval
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 3 -
beginning from application of said step signal, (i) to
increase the exciting current to a first predetermined
value during a first exciting time period,
(ii) subsequently to reduce the exciting current to a
second predetermined value during a second exciting time
period and (iii) further to decrease the exciting current
to zero during a third exciting time period.
The Examiner relies on the admitted prior art (APA) in
Figures 1-4, and the specification at pages 1-4 and 6-10.
Claims 6-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by the APA.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 7), the
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 14) (pages referred to as
"EA__"), and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 18)
for a statement of the Examiner's position and to the Appeal
Brief (Paper No. 13) (pages referred to as "Br__") and the
Reply Brief (Paper No. 17) for Appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Claim interpretation
The claims require interpretation. "[T]he name of the
game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 4 -
Claim 6 recites "controlling said exciting current
supplying circuit, when the exciting current supplied to said
stepping motor is cut off at a termination of an enable
excitation time interval beginning from application of said
step signal [to perform function (i), (ii) and (iii) during
first, second, and third "exciting time periods,"
respectively]" (emphasis added). The "enable excitation time
interval" refers to the time interval when signal +STACT is
enabled. As noted at oral hearing, the underlined limitation
is intended to refer to the interval (see the modified copy of
Figure 6 on the next page) including a first time period 6(i)
and a second time period 6(ii) before the enable signal is
terminated and a third time period 6(iii) after the enable
signal is terminated (the exciting current is cut off).
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 5 -
Claim 7 recites "controlling said exciting current
supplying circuit, when the exciting current of said stepping
motor is restored during an enable excitation time interval
beginning from application of said step signal [to perform
functions (i), (ii), and (iii)]" (emphasis added). As noted
at oral hearing, the underlined limitation is intended to
refer to the interval (see the modified copy of Figure 6)
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 6 -
including the three time periods 7(i), 7(ii), and 7(iii) when
the enable signal is first restored.
Claim 8 recites "controlling said exciting current
supplying circuit, when the exciting current is applied to
said stepping motor during an enable excitation time interval
beginning from application of said step signal [to perform
functions (i), (ii), and (iii)]" (emphasis added). As noted
at oral hearing, the underlined limitation is intended to
refer to the interval (see the modified copy of Figure 6)
including the three time periods 8(i), 8(ii), and 8(iii)
between the time the enable signal +STACT is restored and the
time it is terminated.
Against this background of what is intended to be
claimed, we begin our claim interpretation.
The first interpretation involves the "exciting time
period" limitations in functions (i), (ii), and (iii) of
claims 6-8. This language does not clearly refer to the
"enable excitation time interval," but the limitations seem
related. We interpret an "exciting time period" to refer to a
time period during which the exciting current enable signal is
ON. This is consistent with the arguments in the brief (e.g.,
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 7 -
Br6: "time period tc is not an exciting time period, since it
occurs after the end of the exciting current enable signal").
The second interpretation involves the limitation in
claim 6 about "(iii) further to decrease the exciting current
to zero during a third exciting time period" (emphasis added).
This limitation is misdescriptive under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, because the current in Figure 6 clearly
decreases to zero after the termination of the exciting
current enable signal during a time period which is not an
exciting time period just as the exciting current in the APA
of Figure 1 decreases to zero during non-exciting time period
tc. See Br6: "time period tc is not an exciting time period,
since it occurs after the end of the exciting current enable
signal." A new ground of rejection is entered infra.
The third interpretation involves the limitation in
claim 6 about controlling the exciting current supply circuit
"when the exciting current supplied to said stepping motor is
cut off at a termination of an enable excitation time interval
beginning from application of said step signal." This
limitation is misdescriptive under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, because the term "when" indicates the three
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 8 -
exciting time periods of limitations (i)-(iii) take place
after the termination of the enable excitation time interval.
However, the time first two time periods of (i) and (ii) take
place before the enable signal is terminated. A new ground of
rejection is entered infra.
The fourth interpretation involves the functions (i)-
(iii) in claims 6-8. The claims are open ended and the
limitations do not preclude other time periods from occurring
in between the first, second, and third exciting time periods.
That is, limitations (i)-(iii) do not expressly tie the end of
one time period to the beginning of the next time period.
This will be important in discussing the anticipation
rejection.
The fifth interpretation involves the following
limitation in claim 6: "when the exciting current supplied to
said stepping motor is cut off at a termination of an enable
excitation time interval beginning from application of said
step signal." As interpreted in the third interpretation
above, this time period is intended to include two exciting
time intervals before the termination of the enable signal and
a non-exciting time interval after the termination of the
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 9 -
enable signal. Consistent with the fourth interpretation
above, we interpret that this time period is not limited to
the last three time periods in Figure 6, but reads on any two
exciting time periods within the enable signal interval and a
non-exciting time period after termination of the enable
signal interval when the current goes to zero.
The sixth interpretation involves the following
limitation in claim 7: "when the exciting current of said
stepping motor is restored during an enable excitation time
interval beginning from application of said step signal."
Consistent with the fourth interpretation above, we interpret
that this time period is not limited to the first three time
periods in Figure 6, but reads on any three exciting time
periods within the enable signal interval.
The seventh interpretation involves the following
limitation in claim 8: "when the exciting current is applied
to said stepping motor during an enable excitation time
interval beginning from application of said step signal."
Consistent with the fourth interpretation above, we interpret
that this time period is not limited to the last three time
periods in the enable signal interval in Figure 6, but reads
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 10 -
on any three exciting time periods within the enable signal
interval.
Anticipation
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention."
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We do not agree with the Examiner's reliance on time
interval td in the APA of Figure 3. During the time
interval td, the exciting current enable signal (and, thus,
the exciting current) is being repeatedly turned on and off
(specification, page 10, lines 3-4). As we interpret the
claims, it is not an "exciting time period" when the enable
signal is turned off. While it is true that the exciting
current is reduced at the time td (specification, page 9,
line 25), it does not happen during an "exciting time period"
because the current only decreases when the enable signal is
turned off.
Nevertheless, we find that claims 6-8, as properly
interpreted, are anticipated by the APA of Figures 1 and 3.
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 11 -
It is easier to discuss Figure 1, which is the same as
Figure 3 except for the chopping interval td. In the
following analysis we employ our interpretation that the
first, second, and third exciting time periods in functions
(i), (ii), and (iii) do not have to be sequential because the
open-ended nature of the claims does not preclude other time
periods in between the ones recited. We also use our
interpretations that claims 6-8 are not limited to the
portions of the waveform which were intended.
With respect to claim 6, assuming the misdescriptiveness
problem was fixed: (i) the exciting current is increased to a
first predetermined value during a "first exciting time
period" ta; (ii) the exciting current is reduced to a second
predetermined value during a "second exciting time period" at
the end of ta when the substep signal is received (note that
it takes a finite amount of time for the exciting current to
drop at the end of time ta--this finding is consistent with
claim 7, function (iii) wherein the third exciting time period
refers to a similar vertical drop of short time duration at
the end of the first PWM cycle in Figure 6); and (iii) the
exciting current is reduced to zero during a third time period
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 12 -
tc after the enable excitation time interval terminates
(claim 6 does not preclude intervening time interval tb). The
rejection of claim 6 is sustained.
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 13 -
With respect to claim 7: (i) the exciting current is
increased to a first predetermined value during a "first
exciting time period" ta; and (ii) the exciting current is
reduced to a second predetermined value during a "second
exciting time period" at the end of ta when the substep signal
is received (as discussed in more detail in connection with
claim 6). However, the exciting current is not reduced to
zero during a third exciting time period as recited by (iii),
which recitation does not appear to be in error like that in
claim 6. The current does not decrease to zero in the short
time period at the end of ta. Time period tc is after the
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 14 -
exciting time period terminates. The current is reduced to
zero during time period td in Figure 3 only during a
non-exciting time period. Thus, the anticipation rejection of
claims 7, 10, and 13 is reversed.
With respect to claim 8: (i) the exciting current is
increased to a first predetermined value during a "first
exciting time period" ta; (ii) the exciting current is reduced
to a second predetermined value during a "second exciting time
period" at the end of ta when the substep signal is received
(as discussed in more detail in connection with claim 6); and
(iii) the exciting current is increased to a third
predetermined value during a "third exciting time period" tb.
In fact, no special interpretations are required for claim 8
to read on the APA. The anticipation rejection of claim 8 is
sustained.
The APA does not disclose "applying a pulse width
modulation control signal to said exciting current supplying
circuit during said second exciting time period" as recited in
claims 9-11. The Examiner's finding that chopping interval td
in Figure 3 corresponds to pulse width modulation control is
erroneous because that interval is not an "exciting time
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 15 -
period" as we have interpreted that term. Accordingly, the
anticipation rejection of claims 9-11, and claims 12-14 which
further depend therefrom, is reversed.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Claims 6, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as misdescriptive. As discussed in the
"Claim interpretation" section, the limitation in claim 6
about "(iii) further to decrease the exciting current to zero
during a third exciting time period" (emphasis added) is
misdescriptive because the current in Figure 6 clearly
decreases to zero after the termination of the exciting
current enable signal during a time period which is not an
exciting time period. Also, the limitation in claim 6 about
controlling the exciting current supply circuit "when the
exciting current supplied to said stepping motor is cut off at
a termination of an enable excitation time interval beginning
from application of said step signal" is misdescriptive
because the term "when" indicates the three exciting time
periods of limitations (i)-(iii) take place after the
termination of the enable excitation time interval, whereas
the first two time periods of (i) and (ii) take place before
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 16 -
the enable signal is terminated. Claims 9 and 12 are rejected
because they depend from claim 6.
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 17 -
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is sustained. The rejection of claims 7 and 9-14 under
§ 102(b) is reversed.
A new ground of rejection has been entered as to
claims 6, 9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that, "A new ground of rejection
shall not be considered final for purposes of judicial
review."
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new
ground of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings
(§ 1.197(c)) as to the rejected claims:
(1) Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or a showing of facts relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
application will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 18 -
(2) Request that the application be reheard
under § 1.197(b) by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences upon the same record. . . .
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART -- 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-4445
Application 08/305,076
- 19 -
James E. Ledbetter, Esq.
STEVENS, DAVIS, MILLER & MOSHER, L.L.P.
1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 850
P.O. Box 34387
Washington, DC 20043-4387