Appeal No. 1999-1998
Application 08/793,365
C (column 5, lines 32 through 36). A reference value from C-
Ref is thereafter compared with the counted pulses (column 5,
lines 36 through 44).
Appellant argues (reply brief, pages 2 and 3) that the
examiner has mistakenly concluded (final rejection, page 2)
that 1/T1 is an actual rpm value, and that 1/1.5T1 is a
nominal rpm value. In the absence of a convincing line of
reasoning that explains how cycling time periods can be
equated to rpm values, we agree with the appellant that “the
words in claims are not simply empty vessels into which an
Examiner can pour what he wishes from the prior art in order
to meet the language of a claim” (reply brief, page 4).
Stated differently, no amount of explanation by the examiner
will convince us that time periods are the same as rpm values.
Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 8
is reversed.
Turning next to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claims 1, 2 and 8 based upon the teachings of Ishikura, we
find that Ishikura discloses an AC motor control unit (Figure
1) in which a comparator 29 compares a reference voltage at
its negative input terminal to a capacitor output voltage at
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007