Appeal No. 1997-0397
Application 07/863,900
and control circuit, is the same as in the combination of Sato and
Gerfast. For these reasons, the "whereby" clause does not patentably
distinguish over the combination of Sato and Gerfast.
Nevertheless, even assuming, arguendo, that the "whereby"
clause is limiting, we conclude that Gerfast does suggest this
limitation. Gerfast discloses that "[t]he size of the
current-limiting capacitor should be selected to match the load, a
larger capacitor being necessary to supply a larger current" (col. 2,
lines 35-37). The "load" signifies the demand on the motor, which
should more or less equal the power output. Thus, Gerfast suggests
that the power output to match the load can be adjusted by selection
of the capacitor.
Appellants argue that the references do not teach, suggest, or
provide any incentive for making the combination and that the
Examiner has improperly applied hindsight (Br8-9).
We disagree. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to use Gerfast's circuit with capacitor to provide power to
the brushless DC motor of Sato to power the motor from an AC voltage
source without a transformer. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to apply Gerfast's circuit with
capacitor to the brushless DC motor of Sato because it would have
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007