Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
switch so that the control signal is, indeed, provided to a “specific” transistor switch. While
the controller, 40, of Shultz does provide control signals to each of the power switches
(transistors 30-32) and the switches do provide power to be routed from the power source
to the windings 15-17 of the motor 11 with each of the transistor switches associated with
an output port, Shultz is very clear that simultaneous driving signals are applied to at least
two windings [column 5, lines 10-15, claims 1 and 11]. However, we do not find any claim
language that would preclude this simultaneous application to at least two windings in
Shultz. Thus, Shultz does provide a control signal to a specific power switch, causing
power to be routed from the power source to the output port associated with that switch.
Shultz provides a control signal to power switches causing power to be routed from a
power source to the output port associated with that switch. Even though Shultz requires
the application of the control signal to at least two switches, Shultz can still be said to teach
providing a control signal to a specific power switch since the control signal is applied to
each winding, as needed.
Nevertheless, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
because the claim requires “transceiver circuitry . . . to send and receive messages” and
that the control signal is provided “to a specific power switch in accordance with a
received message”. While the examiner contends that Shultz’s “transceiver circuitry”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007