Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5, dependent from
claim 1.
The Examiner applied the same combination of
references (Karlin, Yamaguchi and Nam) in rejecting claims 7
through 12. Independent claim 7 (at lines 15-17) recites “a
single controlling means for controlling the rotation of each
of the condenser motor and the blower motor by generating the
plurality of driving signals” (emphasis added). As noted
above, these references, singularly or in combination, do not
teach a single controller, i.e., microcomputer, for generating
the drive signals for all motors. Therefore we will not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 7, and likewise
claims 8 through 12 dependent therefrom.
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
At first glance, Karlin appears to meet all the
limitations of claims 14 and 15. It is axiomatic that
anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the
prior art reference discloses every element of the claim.
See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138
(Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007