Ex Parte TieuDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 27, 200710448725 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2007) Copy Citation The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding precedent of the Board. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte TRIET MINH TIEU ____________ Appeal 2007-3939 Application 10/448,725 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: September 27, 2007 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(a) and 6(b) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-19. Claims 7 and 20 have been objected to by the Examiner for being dependant upon rejected claims but otherwise allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Appeal 2007-3939 Application 10/448,725 We affirm. Appellant’s invention relates to a method and apparatus for accurately detecting the position of a rotor in an electrically commutated brushless direct current (dc) spindle motor such as the type used in a data storage device to rotate a data recording disc (Specification 1). According to Appellant, the inductive rise time (RT) exhibits an approximate linear function with respect to the rotor’s position within the commutation state (Specification 10). This approximate linear relationship, relative to the next commutation point the rotor will encounter during rotation, is used to calculate a substantially accurate position for the rotor (id.). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary independent claims 1 and 9, which are reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: developing a model of a motor based on a response of a winding of the motor to an application of a non-rotational inducing current across the winding for a predetermined time period; and determining a substantially accurate position of a rotor of the motor within a first commutation state of an electrical revolution of the motor in which the rotor resides based on the model. 9. An apparatus adapted to determine a first commutation state of a motor that a rotor of the motor resides and determine a substantially accurate position of the rotor within the first commutation state. The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference in rejecting the appealed claims: Calfee US 5,982,571 Nov. 9, 1999 2 Appeal 2007-3939 Application 10/448,725 The Examiner rejected claims 1-6 and 8-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Calfee. Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, we refer to the Brief and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner. ISSUE The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Calfee. FINDINGS OF FACT The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issue at hand. 1. Calfee relates to data recording disk drives and means for releasing the disk drive carrier from the disk when the carrier is stuck to disk surface (col. 1, ll. 6-11). 2. Calfee discloses that when the rotor becomes stuck, because the position of the rotor relative to the phase windings at startup is not known, inappropriate phase windings relative to the rotor may be energized, generating magnetic fields that induce little or no torque to rotate the rotor (col. 2, ll. 34-38). 3. In order to ensure that proper phase windings are energized, Calfee uses sensing devices, such as Hall sensors, to determine the rotor position relative to the windings at startup. Once the rotor position is determined, appropriate windings can be energized to provide maximum torque to the rotor. The rotor position can also be used to energize 3 Appeal 2007-3939 Application 10/448,725 appropriate windings to rotate the rotor in the correct direction every time. However, such sensors must be precisely positioned and the sensor components are expensive and take up physical space in the motor (col. 2, ll. 46-57). 4. Calfee provides for a method for accelerating the motor of the disk drive from standstill to a threshold speed by determining a rotational position of the rotor relative to the phase windings during a time period, selectively establishing current paths through selected windings capable of providing maximum torque to the rotor based on the rotational position of the rotor and applying a current to the selected windings for a time period to provide maximum torque to rotate the rotor (col. 5, ll. 39-52; col. 8, ll. 38- 42). 5. In order to start the spindle motor and free the slider in case of stiction, the drive performs closed loop commutation of the spindle motor by periodically sampling the rotor position, and then driving the spindle motor by energizing appropriate phase windings relative to the rotor position that provide maximum forward torque to the rotor (col. 8, ll. 21-31). 6. The rotor position detection (RPD) procedure uses indirect inductance measurements to identify one of the six stable equilibrium positions as the closest stable equilibrium position to the rotor's current position (col. 11, ll. 32-36). The procedure includes the steps of measuring the relative inductance of each phase winding by measuring the current rise times in the phase winding in response to step voltages of opposite polarities applied across the phase windings at, preferably, one rotor position (col. 11, ll. 40-44). 4 Appeal 2007-3939 Application 10/448,725 7. Calfee further discloses that following the first millisecond (msec), the drive current to the motor is cut off and the motor is allowed to coast for approximately 2 msec to perform an RPD procedure by measuring the rise time of the current in each phase pair. Once the commutation output state is determined by the RPD procedure, the appropriate phase windings are energized at full scale current to provide maximum forward torque to the rotor until the next 12 msec RPD and commutation period (col. 14, ll. 15- 22). PRINCIPLES OF LAW A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Anticipation of a claim requires a finding that the claim at issue reads on a prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). ANALYSIS 1. Claim 9 Appellant starts with claim 9 by arguing that although Calfee determines the location of the rotor, a substantially accurate position of the rotor is not determined (Br. 4). Appellant characterizes Calfee’s determined equilibrium positions as an approximation of the rotor’s position and asserts 5 Appeal 2007-3939 Application 10/448,725 that such determination is not the same as determining a substantially accurate position of the rotor, as claimed (id.). The Examiner argues that Appellant has not specified the degree of accuracy for the claimed determination of a substantially accurate rotor position (Answer 5). In that regard, the Examiner asserts that determining the rotor position made by Calfee is accurate enough to read on the broad language of claim 9 (id.). We agree with the Examiner and find that the claimed term “substantially accurate” lacks specific requirements as to how accurate the position of rotor needs to be determined. As such, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, we find that the claimed “determining a substantially accurate position of the rotor” is taught by Calfee. In view of the analysis above, we find that Calfee prima facie anticipates claim 9 as the reference teaches all the recited features. Additionally, Appellant argues claims 10-19 together with the representative claim 9 (Br. 4) and thus, allows these claims to fall with claim 9. 2. Claim 1 With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that Calfee does not disclose application of a non-rotational current, as required by claim 1 (Br. 4). Appellant refers to current value ITH as a percentage of IMAX and asserts that Calfee does not show that ITH is a non-rotational inducing current (id.). The Examiner responds by relying on the description of how an RPD procedure is done during the time the drive current to the motor is cut off and the motor is allowed to coast to characterize the applied current as a non-rotational inducing current (Answer 5-6). 6 Appeal 2007-3939 Application 10/448,725 We agree with the Examiner’s characterization of measuring the current rise as a part of the RPD during such period as applying a non- rotational inducing current (FF 6-7). In that regard, the current applied to energize the rotor, when the motor is coasting to perform the RPD procedure, is not the same as the full scale current applied to provide the forward torque to the rotor and, therefore, can be properly construed to be a non-rotational inducing current. Additionally, Appellant points to the limitation of claim 1 related to “determining a substantially accurate position of the rotor” and presents similar arguments discussed above with respect to claim 9. Thus, in view of the analysis above and the teachings of Calfee related to determining the position of the rotor, we find that Calfee prima facie anticipates claim 1, as well as claims 2-6 and 8, which are argued together with representative claim 1 (Br. 5). CONCLUSION On the record before us, the Examiner has made a prima facie case that Calfee anticipates claims 1-6 and 8-19. 1 Therefore, in view of our 1 The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph for being indefinite and failure to recite method steps which lack a relational correspondence among their elements (Final Rejection 2-3). However, this rejection appears to be withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer which leaves these two claims as objected to for being dependent upon rejected base claims, but probably considered allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of their base claim and any intervening claims. 7 Appeal 2007-3939 Application 10/448,725 analysis above, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-6 and 8- 19 as anticipated by Calfee. 2 DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-6 and 8-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). 2 We observe that claims 1 and 9 recite method steps and functions to be performed by an apparatus, describing mainly a concept without indicating how the steps are implemented. These claims are merely drawn to “disembodied abstract ideas,” which do not have any “real world effect” until they are implemented. The absence of any transformation of physical subject matter according to the definition of a process under 35 U.S.C. § 101, places these claims on the other side of the line defining statutory subject matter. A case involving this issue is presently on appeal to the Federal Circuit: In re Bilski, No. 2007-1130 (to be argued Oct. 1, 2007). Additionally, in performing the method steps of claim 1, there is no requirement that a computer be used. Therefore, the claimed subject matter may be performed using only human intelligence, which has recently been held to be non-statutory. In re Comiskey, No. 2006-1286, Slip Op. at 21 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 20, 2007). We do not need to reach the issue of whether claims 1 and 9 encompass non-statutory subject matter since we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting these claims. However, we encourage the Examiner to consider patentability of the allowed claims 7 and 20, which are dependent upon claims 1 and 9, under Section 101 in the event the prosecution of these claims is reopened. 8 Appeal 2007-3939 Application 10/448,725 AFFIRMED MDS eld David K. Lucente Seagate Technology LLC Intellectual Property - COL2LGL 389 Disc Drive Longmont CO 80503 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation