Appeal No. 1997-0397
Application 07/863,900
To the extent Appellants are arguing that the motors of Sato
and Gerfast are not inherently capable of operating within a range of
power outputs determinable by a capacitor, but must be physically
changed to operate at different power outputs, no evidence has been
provided to support this argument. As discussed supra, we find that
Gerfast suggests changing the value of the capacitor to change the
power output to a fixed motor hardware. Thus, this argument is not
persuasive.
Appellants argue (Br11-12): "The power supply of Gerfast,
while perhaps performing a current limiting function, does not
'determine' the power output of the appliance's motor." It is argued
(RBr3): "Gerfast's capacitor at best merely limits the input current
supplied to the appliance but this has nothing to do with controlling
the output power of the appliance."
We disagree. The value of the capacitor limits the current,
which limits ("determines") the power output of the motor. Thus,
this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the results and advantages of the
structure recited in claim 66 cannot be ignored (Br12). The
advantage of Appellants' combined motor and control is said to be
that the power output of a single defined motor hardware can be
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007