Appeal No. 1996-1427
Application 08/029,028
that the examiner has failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness. For the reasons which
follow, we will not sustain the decisions of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We first turn to appellant’s argument (Brief, pages 5 and 7) that the recited slip correction
means (see representative claim 1) and the recited slip correction step (see representative claim 6) are
neither taught nor suggested by the applied references. Because we agree with appellant, we will
reverse the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant correctly states that the examiner admits (see final rejection) that neither Cornell nor
Muskovac teaches progressively increasing slip frequency as electromotive motor force approaches the
power supply voltage as required by claims 1 and 6 on appeal. The examiner relies upon Danz (Figure
3) to teach this feature. We cannot agree with the examiner that the slip frequency adjustment recited in
the claims on appeal is met by what is shown in Danz’s Figure 3. We agree with appellant that "Danz
does not sense the electromotive force of the motor and therefore does not use the difference between
the electromotive force of the motor and the power supply voltage as a means for regulating the slip
frequency" (Brief, page 6). Danz uses stator current, I , as shown in Figures 2 and 3. We find that
s
Danz does not sense or compare a power supply voltage, but instead uses a constant "M" which serves
to exponentially increase slip frequency. Cornell uses stator current as shown in Figure 2. Muskovac
also uses motor current (see line "e" in Figure 2A). The examiner has failed to make a prima facie case
that the collective teachings of the applied references would have taught or suggested the voltage and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007