Appeal No. 1998-0398
Application No. 08/284,160
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Ernest 5,105,141 Apr. 14,
1992
Claims 1, 2, 11, 13 and 14 stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of enablement.
Claims 1, 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Ernest.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
The lack of enablement rejection is reversed, and the
obviousness rejection is reversed.
Turning first as we must to the lack of enablement
rejection, the examiner is of the opinion that the
microprocessor alone can not determine which type of motor is
being driven by the power inverter, that the specification is
silent as to how the microprocessor determines which type of
motor is connected to the power inverter, that the
microcomputer can not tell whether the switch 49 is open or
closed, that the specification does not recite that the switch
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007