Appeal No. 1998-0398
Application No. 08/284,160
49 is controlled by the microprocessor, and that the
microprocessor is not shown (Final rejection, page 3).
Appellants argue (Reply Brief, page 3) that:
In the Appeal Brief, on page 9, Appellants state
that “the switch 49 is either directly controlled by
the microprocessor, in response to the simple input
signal, or is controlled by the input signal
itself.” Appellants have not asserted that the
switch 49 is controlled by the microprocessor
because it is not necessary for it to be controlled
by the microprocessor. More importantly, Appellants
again assert that the mechanism for controlling the
switches is not relevant to the invention. The
switch could, for example, be manually toggled
switches that are set by the technician attaching
the power inverter apparatus to the motor.
Alternatively, the switch could be driven by the
microprocessor in response to any of a huge array of
potential mechanisms for sensing the motor type.
The control of a switch is well within the
competence of a person skilled in the art, and the
selection of the control mechanism is a simple
design choice. Thus, the application enables a
person skilled in the art to practice the invention,
as is required under section 112.
We agree with appellants’ arguments. The claims on
appeal are all directed to a controller, and not to a
microprocessor, that connects the power inverter to either of
the two different types of motors. We likewise agree with the
appellants that the switch control could be implemented in a
variety of ways because it is within the competency of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007