Appeal No. 1997-3237
Application 08/266,081
We note that Appellants’ claim 1 recites
... (a) operating said electric motor in a regeneration
mode at a first operating point; and
(b) operating said electric motor in a regeneration mode
at a second operating point of reduced efficiency with
respect to said first operating point in response to a
regeneration current generated by said electric motor
(emphasis added).
We find that claim 1 requires two distinct operating
points while the motor is in regeneration mode, the second
point being at a lower efficiency than the first. We note
that these operating points refer to how efficiently the motor
is generating current. We further find that the claim recites
that the change in the operating point is in response to a
regeneration current from the motor. Therefore, the operating
point of the motor in its regeneration mode is changed to the
reduced efficiency point according to a specific condition of
the regeneration current.
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. In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(citing In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657
(Fed. Cir. 1990)).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007