Appeal 2007-1723
Application 10/893,962
therefore increase the drive motor’s output to prevent such descent as the
Examiner seems to suggest. Rather, Barge’s statement merely provides the
rationale for the position detector 4 to send a signal to gate 46 to prohibit its
opening. See Barge, col. 8, ll. 51-55.
In any event, although we agree with Appellant that the motor current
increase in Barge naturally results when the window arrives at either end of
travel or has an obstacle in its path, that current must nonetheless originate
from somewhere. And that source would be a motor output control means in
Barge whose principal component is the chopper 1.
While neither the Appellant nor the Examiner have provided
evidentiary support on this record for their respective assertions regarding
whether this natural current increase in Barge necessarily results in a
concomitant increase in motor output, we need not decide this question as
the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 in a
more fundamental respect.
Claim 1 calls for the motor output control means to increase 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. This predetermined time period, indicated as “t1” in
Figure 7 of the present application, is a fundamental aspect of the
embodiment of Appellant’s claimed invention to ensure that the glass is
effectively closed -- even when the motor is locked.5
5 See, e.g., Figure 7 and p. 27, ll. 2-6 and 20-25; p. 29, ll. 1-8 of the present
application (noting that power is supplied to the drive motor at 100% duty
ratio during predetermined time period t1 after motor is locked to ensure
glass is effectively closed); see also step S36 in Fig. 8 (determining whether
period t1 has elapsed before stopping motor).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013