Appeal No. 1998-1231 Page 7
Application No. 08/729,835
the single direction and optimum velocity are considered new
matter and cannot be found within the specification.”
Appellants assert (brief, page 6) that Yoshida is
directed to “controlling a motion of a driven member in a
first direction and then reversing the movement to return the
member to the initial position.” Appellants additionally
assert (id.) that in Yoshida, “[t]here is no disclosure
pertaining to avoiding disturbances to the motion of the door
due to motor torque.” We find that in Yoshida (col. 2, lines
32-34), the motor driven component, i.e., the door, is moved
between open and closed positions. As stated by Yoshida,
“forward and reverse rotation of the motor M will provide an
opening and closing of the door 5.” Accordingly, we find that
the limitation “in a single direction” (emphasis added) is not
met by Yoshida.
We further find that Yoshida is silent as to preventing
motor torque disturbances from affecting the velocity of the
driven component. Yoshida discloses (col. 1, lines 18-39)
that in the prior art, a revolution sensor was mounted on the
shaft of a door drive motor to generate signals indicating the
number of revolutions of the motor. However, the problem with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007