Ex parte Maeda

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 17, 2001

08217184 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 2001)

We assume that the obviousness rejection set forth in1
the examiner’s answer was likewise withdrawn in favor of the
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TAMOTSU MAEDA
____________
Appeal No. 1997-1165
Application No. 08/217,184
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 6. After submission of the reply brief, the examiner
withdrew the rejection of claims 2 through 4 , and instituted1
Appeal No. 1997-1165
Application No. 08/217,184
new ground of rejection in the supplemental examiner’s answer.
The amendment was filed with the supplemental reply2
brief.
2
a new ground of rejection of claims 1, 5, and 6 (supplemental
examiner’s answer, paper number 14). In an Amendment After
Final (paper number 15), claims 2 and 3 were amended, and2
claim 5 was canceled. Accordingly, claims 1 and 6 remain
before us on appeal.
The disclosed invention relates to an optical disk drive
wherein holding structure for a spindle motor that drives an
optical disk is mounted so that the center axis of vibration
of the spindle motor is inclined at an angle relative to the
reference scanning line of an optical pickup.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. An optical disk drive comprising:
a spindle motor for driving an optical recording disk for
rotation, the spindle motor having a center axis;
an optical pickup including an objective lens having an
optical axis, the objective lens being movable along a
reference scanning line; and
a spindle motor holding structure that holds the spindle
motor, the spindle motor holding structure having a center
Appeal No. 1997-1165
Application No. 08/217,184
A copy of the translation of this reference is attached.3
3
axis of vibration of the spindle motor inclined at an angle
relative to the reference scanning line, the center axis of
vibration also being in a plane perpendicular to the center
axis of the spindle motor.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Ohmori et al. (Ohmori) 5,416,762 May 16,
1995
(filed Apr. 16, 1992)
Maeda et al. (Maeda) 4-229480 Aug. 18, 19923
(Japanese Patent Application)
Claims 1 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Ohmori.
Reference is made to the supplemental answer (paper
number 14) and the supplemental reply brief (paper number 15)
for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
For all of the reasons expressed by the appellant in the
supplemental reply brief, and for the additional reasons set
forth infra, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 6 is
reversed.
Appellant and the examiner both agree that Maeda does not
show the center axis of vibration of the spindle motor
Appeal No. 1997-1165
Application No. 08/217,184
4
inclined at an angle relative to the reference scanning line
(supplemental reply brief, page 4; supplemental answer, page
2). In fact, Maeda discloses appellant’s admitted prior art
(Figures 4 and 5). Ohmori discloses the use of a vibration
absorbing material 20a
that absorbs vibrations from spindle motor 20 to thereby
prevent the occurrence of resonance that would normally occur
because of the transmission of vibrations between the motor
and chassis (Figure 5; column 6, lines 50 through 63). Thus,
we agree with appellant’s argument (supplemental reply brief,
page 4) that neither of the applied references teaches or
would have suggested holding the spindle motor in such a
manner that the center axis of vibration of the spindle motor
is inclined at an angle relative to the reference scanning
line.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 6
is reversed.
Appeal No. 1997-1165
Application No. 08/217,184
5
Appeal No. 1997-1165
Application No. 08/217,184
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
lp
Appeal No. 1997-1165
Application No. 08/217,184
7
PHILIP M. SHAW, JR.
LIMBACH & LIMBACH
2001 FERRY BLDG.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-4262
Leticia
Appeal No. 1997-1165
Application No. 08/217,184
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ BARRETT
APJ KRASS
DECISION:REVERSED
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation (s)
Panel Change: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s):
Prepared: July 15, 2002
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU
PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT