Ex Parte Yoshida

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 12, 2002

09088976 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 12, 2002)

-1–
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte RYUICHI YOSHIDA

Appeal No. 2001-1481
Application No. 09/088,976

ON BRIEF

Before KRASS, RUGGIERO and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-4, all of the pending claims.
The invention pertains to a driving control apparatus and
method. In particular, the waveform of a voltage applied to a
piezoelectric transducer is controlled, resulting in control of
an electrification period of time and an electrification start
Appeal No. 2001-1481
Application No. 09/088,976
-2–
time of a high speed electrifying circuit and a low speed
electrifying circuit of a driving pulse generating means. With
such control, a voltage waveform can be changed while an object
is moving in a single direction, thereby reducing the degree of
movement of the object as the object approaches a target
position.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A driving apparatus comprising:
an electromechanical transducer which can extend and
contract in a predetermined direction, said transducer having a
first end and a second end in the predetermined direction;
a first member connected to the first end of said
transducer;
a driving frictional member connected to the second end of
said transducer;
a second member frictionally coupled with said driving
frictional member;
a driving pulse generating means including a high-speed
electrifying circuit and a low-speed electrifying circuit, said
driving pulse generating means being connected to said
electromechanical transducer; and
a controller which is capable of controlling an
electrification period of time and an electrification start time
of said high-speed electrifying circuit and said low-speed
electrifying circuit of said driving pulse generating means.
Appeal No. 2001-1481
Application No. 09/088,976
-3–
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Saito et al. [Saito] 5,225,941 Jul. 6, 1993
Claims 1, 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
anticipated by Saito.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable
over Saito.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), a reference must disclose,
explicitly or implicitly, every limitation of the claimed
invention. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34
USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.), cert. Denied, 516 U.S. 988 (1995).
It is the examiner’s position that Saito discloses each and
every element of the subject matter of claims 1, 2 and 4.
Taking claim 1, we agree that Saito discloses a driving
apparatus comprising an electromechanical transducer 12 that
Appeal No. 2001-1481
Application No. 09/088,976
-4–
extends and contracts in a predetermined direction (along driving
rod 17) and has a first end and a second end in the predetermined
direction. There is also a first member connected to the first
end of the transducer and a driving frictional member connected
to the second end of the transducer. Saito also discloses the
claimed second member frictionally coupled with the driving
frictional member and there is a driving pulse generating means.
Saito also has a high speed electrifying circuit and a low speed
electrifying circuit in order to enable a speed of expansion of
the transducer different from the speed of contraction thereof.
The point of contention between the examiner and the
appellant is in the last clause of the claim:
a controller which is capable of controlling an
electrification period of time and an electrification
start time of said high-speed electrifying circuit and
said low-speed electrifying circuit of said driving
pulse generating means.
In independent method claim 4, the language in contention is
that the transducer is electrified by a low-speed charging or
discharging during a first period of time and the transducer is
electrified by high-speed charging or discharging during a second
period of time and
“wherein the start time of the second period of time from
the start time of the first specified time is changed based on
Appeal No. 2001-1481
Application No. 09/088,976
-5–
the first period of time.”
In order to support these explicit claim limitations, the
examiner points to Figures 3(A) and 3(B) of Saito, declaring that
the controller 20, 30
can set a low-speed electrification period of time to
be a first period of time (fig. 3B, rise time) and can
set a period of time from a low-speed electrification
start time to a high-speed electrification start time
to be a second period of time (fig. 3B, fall time)
wherein said controller (20, 30), for a second driving
speed, can set (fig. 3A, rise time) the low-speed
electrification period of time to be shorter than the
first period of time and can set the period of time
from the low-speed electrification start time to the
high-speed electrification start time to be shorter
than the second period (falling edge, figure 3A) of
time; and wherein said second driving speed is lower
than said first driving speed [answer-pages 2-3].
It is true that Saito uses a driving circuit for applying a
voltage to the transducer so as to make the speed of expansion of
the transducer different from the speed of contraction. It is
also true that Figures 3(A) and 3(B) of Saito show waveforms of
driving pulses applied to the transducer wherein 3(A) relates to
rapid expansion and 3(B) relates to contraction. Saito is
disclosing that the transducer element 12 has a voltage waveform
applied to it in order to move a lens barrel 1 in a leftward or
rightward direction. In one direction, the speed of expansion is
used and it will be different than the speed of contraction in
Appeal No. 2001-1481
Application No. 09/088,976
-6–
the other direction.
Thus, as broadly set forth in instant claim 1, Saito clearly
shows a controller which controls an electrification period of
time (the width of one pulse in Figure 3(A)) and an
electrification start time (the beginning of the pulse in Figure
3(A) of Saito) of the high-speed electrifying circuit (Figure 3
(A)-expansion) and the low-speed electrifying circuit (Figure 3
(B)-contraction).
Since claim 1 recites nothing about changing time periods or
about relative lengths of periods of time between low-speed and
high-speed electrification periods of time, we find that Saito
does, indeed, disclose the instant claimed subject matter.
However, when it comes to instant claim 2, we find nothing
in Saito about setting a low-speed electrification period of time
to be a first period of time and a period of time from a low-
speed electrification start time to a high-speed electrification
start time to be at a second period of time, for a first driving
speed, and wherein for a second driving speed, the low-speed
electrification period of time can be set shorter than the first
period of time and can set the period of time from the low-speed
electrification start time to the high-speed electrification
Appeal No. 2001-1481
Application No. 09/088,976
-7–
start time to be shorter than the second period of time.
With regard to independent claim 4, we find nothing in Saito
about a start time period of a second period of time from the
start time of a first specified time being changed based on the
first period of time.
There is no indication in Saito that the degree of movement
of the lens barrel may be varied as it approaches a target
position. As explained by appellant, at page 4 of the reply
brief, the “pairs of waveforms of the Saito patent are for moving
the object in opposite directions, not for manipulation of rise
and fall times, and certainly not for varying the degree of
movement of the object in each of several steps of movement of
the object in the same direction as achieved by the present
invention.” While we agree with this statement as a
distinguishing feature of the instant disclosed invention, we do
not find any language in instant claim 1 which brings out this
distinguishing feature of the instant invention. However, we
find that this feature is brought out, albeit somewhat broadly,
in the last paragraph of independent claim 4.
Accordingly, since we find that each and every limitation of
instant claim 1, as broadly claimed, is disclosed by Saito, but
Appeal No. 2001-1481
Application No. 09/088,976
-8–
we find that each and every limitation of instant claims 2 and 4
is not disclosed or suggested by Saito, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) but we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Since claim 3 depends from claim 2, we also will not sustain the
rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
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
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-1481
Application No. 09/088,976
-9–
EK/RWK
SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP
717 NORTH HARWOOD
SUITE 3400
DALLAS, TX 75201