Appeal 2007-1723
Application 10/893,962
view of this teaching, the Examiner asserts that there is motivation to
combine Barge with Redelberger, namely to prevent descent of the window
(Answer 6-7). The Examiner adds that the chopper delivers current to the
motor so that energy supplied when the window is raised is higher than
when it descends (Answer 7). The Examiner further argues that the skilled
artisan would recognize that increasing current to the motor via the chopper
will also increase its output (Answer 10-11).
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
Barge’s control system is concerned with stopping the window at its end of
travel by observing the natural increase in motor current absorbed by the
motor when blocking occurs. To this end, an end-of-travel stop circuit 13
observes motor current during operation. Upon blocking, the motor’s
current intensity suddenly rises. When signals delivered by a position
detector 4 and stop circuit 13 indicate that an end position has been reached,
end-of-travel responsive circuit 12 stops the chopper 1 and cuts off supply to
the motor (Barge, col. 4, ll. 29-36).
Barge notes that current increases in the motor result from either (1)
an obstruction encountered during window travel, or (2) the window
reaching its end of travel (Barge, col. 8, ll. 37-52; col. 9, ll. 9-15). In the
first case, the motor is immediately reversed (Barge, col. 8, ll. 45-47). In the
second case, the chopper 1 ceases to operate and the motor stops (Barge, col.
9, ll. 9-15).
Although Barge indicates that “it is obviously essential not to cause
descent of the window” in connection with reaching its upper end of travel,4
this statement hardly means that a motor output control means should
4 See Barge, col. 8, ll. 48-51.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013