Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
does the addition of Nam to the combination of references now
meet the limitations of claim 1. In Figure 1 of Nam we see a
control portion 2. Control portion 2 appears to be a
microprocessor, note column 1, lines 21-24 and 63-64.
Assuming this microprocessor is equivalent to the claimed
microcomputer, we note that it provides control signals (i.e.
drive signals) to an inverter drive portion 6, which applies
signals to the transistors of inverter 7, to run the
compressor 8 (Nam at column 2, lines 35-40). This is akin to
Appellants’ Figure 1 wherein microcomputer 20 is met by Nam’s
control portion 2, Appellants’ first transistor drive circuit
24 is met by Nam’s drive portion 6, and Appellants’ drive
circuit 5 is met by Nam’s inverter 7. However, Nam’s blower
motor is controlled by portion 11
(column 2 lines 47-50), in much the same way Appellants’ prior
art figure 11 depicts brushless motor control 14. We find no
evidence in Nam that its microprocessor provides drive signals
for blower motor speed control, and therefore also fails to
teach the single microcomputer drive signal generator for
plural motors recited in claim 1. For these reasons we will
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007