Appeal 2007-0939
Application 10/931,274
the recited “second transmission block”). See Kojima, col. 10, l. 67 through
col. 11, l. 11. We further note that one of the inputs to “PHASE
CORRECTION SETTING CONTROL UNIT 21b” (figs. 7 and 8) is the
electric angular velocity (ω r) that is the output of “ANGULAR VELOCITY
COMPUTING UNIT 3” (fig. 7, col. 11, l. 22).
After carefully reviewing the evidence before us, we find the argued
language of the claim (i.e., “feeding an ARCTAN function based on said
frequency”) broadly but reasonably reads on Kojima’s disclosure where “in
addition to the drive frequency (ω 1) the actual electric angular velocity
(ω r) obtained in the angular velocity computing unit 3 can also be used as
the rotational frequency (ω) of the rotary magnet type multi-phase
synchronous motor 1 …” (col. 11, ll. 21-25, emphasis added). Because we
find that Kojima discloses all that is claimed, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 1 as being anticipated by Kojima.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004), we have decided the
appeal with respect to independent claim 9 on the basis of the selected
representative claim alone. Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 9 as being anticipated by Kojima for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Claims 6 and 14
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 14 as being
anticipated by Kojima.
Appellants argue that Kojima does not disclose a differentiator that
differentiates an angle sensed by an angle position sensor to determine the
frequency of operation of the motor, as claimed (Br. 5).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013