Appeal 2007-1723
Application 10/893,962
Even if we assume, without deciding, that the natural increase in
current intensity encountered at the window’s end of travel in Barge is
somehow equivalent to the control means that increases the motor’s output
when the motor is locked as recited in claim 1, we still fail to see how such
an increase occurs during a predetermined time period.
At best, the current increase in Barge is for some unspecified time
period prior to stopping or reversing the motor. Although this unspecified
duration would, to some extent, be dictated by the components used in
Barge’s control system, the reference simply does not mention any specific
time period, let alone indicate that such a time period is “predetermined.”
This time period would inherently vary due to, among other things, the
diverse types of components suitable for use in the control system as well as
their respective tolerances. In our view, such a variable time period simply
strains any reasonable construction of “predetermined.”
In sum, even when the teachings of Barge are combined with
Redelberger, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection since all limitations
of claim 1 are still not taught or suggested. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. We likewise will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5-12 for similar
reasons. Moreover, since the references to Iizawa, Whinnery, and Boisvert
do not cure the deficiencies noted above with respect to claim 1, we will also
not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, and 13.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013