Appeal 2007-0939
Application 10/931,274
function provides an indication of a motor impedance angle”) broadly but
reasonably reads on Kojima’s disclosure (claim 20, see also Kojima, figs. 7
and 8). Because we find that Kojima discloses all that is claimed, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20 and 22 as being anticipated by
Kojima.
Claims 21 and 23
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 21
and 23 as being anticipated by Kojima.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown that Kojima calculates
the motor impedance angle at all, and certainly not identically (Br. 6).
We note that we have fully addressed the issue of calculating the
motor impedance angle (see discussion of claims 20 and 22 supra). We find
that Appellants have failed to rebut the Examiner’s rejection of these claims
with any meaningful analysis. Therefore, we find Appellants have failed to
comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) by merely reciting the
language of the claim and asserting that such language is not taught by the
reference. We further note that a statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we do not
find Appellants’ argument persuasive, and we find that Appellants have not
shown error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of anticipation.
Accordingly, we pro forma sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21
and 23 as being anticipated by Kojima.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013