Ex parte SAYA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 24, 2002

08916413 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2002)

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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 36
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DAISUKE SAYA
_____________
Appeal No. 1999-0861
Application No. 08/916,413
______________
HEARD: JANUARY 9, 2002
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, DIXON, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 21.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for driving a vibration motor at approximately a maximum
starting torque, and for thereafter driving the vibration
motor at approximately a target speed when the vibration motor
enters a specific mode.
Appeal No. 1999-0861
Application No. 08/916,413
2
Appeal No. 1999-0861
Application No. 08/916,413
3
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A vibration motor which is drivable at different
frequencies and has a desired target speed, each
frequency causing the vibration motor to be driven at a
respective, corresponding speed and a respective,
corresponding torque, the vibration motor entering a
specific mode after being started and driven, the
vibration motor comprising:
a detection unit which detects when the
vibration motor enters the specific mode; and
a drive control unit which, when the vibration
motor is started, drives the vibration motor at the
frequency that causes the vibration motor to be driven at
approximately the maximum starting torque and, when the
detection unit detects that the vibration motor enters
the specific mode, drives the vibration motor at a
frequency that causes the vibration motor to be driven at
approximately the target speed.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Suganuma 5,477,099 Dec. 19,
1995
(effective filing date Feb. 11,
1991)
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 8 and 10 through 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Suganuma.
Claims 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Suganuma.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 28 and
Appeal No. 1999-0861
Application No. 08/916,413
4
30), the final rejection (paper number 23) and the answer
(paper number 29) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
1, 2, 4 through 8, 10 through 12, 19 and 20, and we will
reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 13 through
18 and 21, and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3 and
9.
Suganuma discloses an ultrasonic vibration motor that is
controlled to “maximize the start torque” (column 30, line
7 through column 32, line 16).
Appellant argues (brief, page 6) that after the maximized
starting torque is reached in Suganuma, the torque of the
vibration motor is maintained constant, and the vibration
motor is not controlled to reach a target speed.
Appellant’s argument to the contrary notwithstanding,
Suganuma clearly explains that after the vibration motor is
started with the maximum start torque, the motor may be driven
at a constant speed or it may be “accelerated under the
Appeal No. 1999-0861
Application No. 08/916,413
5
control maximizing the output” (column 30, lines 52 through
56). In other words, “the desired drive state may be suitably
switched or varied in continuous manner” after the vibration
motor is driven to its maximum start torque (column 30, lines
60 and 61). As an aside, we note that claims 1, 7, 19 and 20
on appeal do not preclude a “constant” torque. For these
reasons, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 8, 10 through 12,
19 and 20 is sustained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 13 through 18
and 21 is reversed because we agree with appellant’s argument
(brief, page 8) that Suganuma does not teach driving the
vibration motor to first and second maximum start torques.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 9 is
reversed because we agree with appellant’s argument (reply
brief, page 2) that Suganuma neither teaches nor would have
suggested “a storage unit which stores data indicating the
relationship between drive frequency, torque and speed.”
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2,
4 through 8 and 10 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
Appeal No. 1999-0861
Application No. 08/916,413
6
affirmed as to claims 1, 2, 4 through 8, 10 through 12, 19 and
20, and is reversed as to claims 13 through 18 and 21. The
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 3 and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 1999-0861
Application No. 08/916,413
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-ART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 1999-0861
Application No. 08/916,413
8
STAAS & HALSEY
700 ELEVENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001