Appeal 2007-1723
Application 10/893,962
output in Redelberger in such a fashion to prevent the window from
descending from the fully closed position (Answer 3-4).
Appellant argues there is no motivation to modify Redelberger or
combine the references in the manner proposed by the Examiner. Appellant
adds that even if the references were combinable, the combination would
still fail to teach or suggest the invention. In this regard, Appellant
emphasizes that Barge does not disclose a motor output control means that
increases the motor’s output during a period when the motor is in the closed
position. Rather, Appellant notes that Barge merely acknowledges an
increase in motor current that naturally results when the window arrives at
either end of travel or has an obstacle in its path. According to Appellant,
such a naturally-occurring increase of a motor’s current is quite different
than having an element (i.e., a motor output control means) expressly control
the drive motor to increase the motor’s output. Appellant adds that the
current intensity increase is observed merely to determine when to stop the
motor (i.e., when end-of-travel occurs) (Br. 7-13; Reply Br. 4).
Appellant also argues that since both Redelberger and Barge teach
that the motor should be stopped at the end of travel, the references teach
away from increasing the output of the drive motor during a predetermined
time period which begins when the drive motor is locked upon arrival of the
closing member to the fully closed position as claimed (Br. 13-14).
The Examiner contends that Barge’s end-of-travel circuit detects
when the window reaches the end of travel and the motor’s current intensity
increases. According to the Examiner, Barge teaches that such a current
intensity increase occurs at the upper position of the window (end of travel)
since it is “obviously essential not to cause the descent of the window.” In
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013