Appeal No. 97-1408
Application No. 08/210,979
(OF), is based on optimal control theory and state
plane analysis. (Schutten, col. 4, lines 48-60.)
The method of the claimed invention has nothing to
do with optimal control theory and state plane
analysis.
The Examiner further argues that the “phase-
angle system deviation” recited in claim 1 is used
to create a new setpoint as discussed in Schutten at
col. 5, lines 46-50. Once again, the cited excerpt
of Schutten relates to the optimal trajectory
control method, which is unrelated to the method of
the claimed invention. In the claimed invention,
the recited “phase-angle system deviation” is not
used to create a new setpoint value (M ). The*
setpoint value is set by a higher-order control and
is not a function of the phase-angle system
deviation (Me). In fact, if anything, the phase-
angle system deviation in the claimed invention is a
function of the setpoint value and not the reverse,
as the Examiner implies.
Likewise, for the above-stated reasons, the
Examiner’s contention that the recited “phase-angle
setpoint value” corresponds to the “desired state
trajectory”, discussed in Schutten at column 4,
lines 58-60, is misguided.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s contention that the
“monotonically decreasing. . .phase-frequency
characteristic” of the recited “measurable state
variable” corresponds to the graph of Figure 5 of
Schutten is also errant. While it is true that Fig.
5 of Schutten shows a monotonically decreasing
relationship between two quantities, that is all it
has in common with the recited monotonically
decreasing phase-frequency characterictic. The
relationship graphed in Fig. 5 of Schutten is simply
not a phase-frequency characteristic. Rather, Fig.
5 of Schutten shows the relationship between the
amplitude of a fundamental harmonic component of a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007