Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523
Appellant’s invention relates to movable barrier operators capable of
obstacle detection with or without speed detection. According to Appellant,
the movable barrier has a motor coupled to the barrier wherein a pulse
modulated speed controller provides the pulse used to control the speed of
the motor (Specification 4-5). In order to detect the presence of an obstacle,
the resultant pulse variable can also be compared with a maximum force
value that represents a level that indicates the presence of an obstacle
(Specification 5). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary independent claim 12, which is reproduced as follows:
12. A method, comprising:
- applying pulse modulation information to a motor to control
speed of movement of a movable barrier; and
- using the pulse modulation information to determine when the
movable barrier has likely encountered an obstacle.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference:
Cook US 5,708,338 Jan. 19, 1998
Claims 12-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Tyler.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is made to the
Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the
Examiner.
We affirm.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appellant’s arguments focus
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013