Appeal 2007-0939
Application 10/931,274
Likewise, we find the ordinary artisan who possessed knowledge and
skills relating to synchronous motor controls systems would have been
capable of combining Kojima’s method of controlling a rotary magnet
multi-phase synchronous motor with the “the well known Park
transformation (α, β/d, q) that converts vectors in [a] 2-phase orthogonal
stationary system (α, β) into the rotating reference frame (d, q) using the
angle θ of the rotating frame,” as taught by Anghel (col. 4, ll. 6-9) for the
purpose of realizing a faster and more efficient means of implementing “d-
axis current controller 6” and “q-axis current controller 7” (Kojima, col. 1,
ll. 54-61). We note that Kojima’s “d-axis current controller 6” amplifies
“the difference between a d-axis component command (I1dcom) of a stator
winding current of the permanent magnet type synchronous motor 1 and the
actual value (I1d) thereof to make a current flow to achieve the command
value” (col. 1, ll. 54-59). We further note that Kojima’s “q-axis current
controller 7” controls a “q-axis component of the stator winding current of
the permanent magnet type synchronous motor 1” (Kojima, col. 1, ll.
59- 61).
Claim 17
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 17 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Kojima in view of Anghel.
Appellants note that the language of claim 17 requires a motor that is
utilized to drive an aircraft-based component. Appellants argue that Kojima
does not disclose an aircraft-based motor (Br. 6).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013