Appeal 2007-0939
Application 10/931,274
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that Kojima shows the
equivalent of a differentiator unit [i.e., fig. 1, “ANGULAR VELOCITY
COMPUTING UNIT 3”] which differentiates the position signal J1 from
position detector 2 to determine an angular velocity, i.e., the angular speed at
which the motor is rotating that further correlates with the frequency of
operation for a synchronous motor (Answer 6).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 14 for
essentially the same reasons set forth in the Answer. In particular, we agree
with the Examiner’s reasoning that “ANGULAR VELOCITY
COMPUTING UNIT 3” inherently obtains an angular velocity signal by
differentiating the angular position information (as provided by position
sensor 2) with respect to time. Furthermore, we have found Kojima’s
ARCTAN function is calculated based on frequency (see discussion of claim
1 supra). We again point to Kojima’s disclosure: i.e., “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). Therefore, we find Kojima
discloses all that is claimed.
Claims 8 and 16
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 16 as being
anticipated by Kojima.
Appellants argue that Kojima does not disclose a summation block
that receives both the ARCTAN function and an angular position of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013