Appeal No. 97-0210
Application No. 08/157,050
Accordingly, we will consider claims 1, 2, and 22 as
representative of the three groups, respectively, with claims
23 and 24 standing or falling with claim 1 and claims 3
through 21 standing or falling with claim 2.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the indefiniteness rejection of claims
11 through 21, 23, and 24; the anticipation rejection of claim
11 over Viandon; and the obviousness rejection of claims 12
through 22; and affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 11
over Demeter and the obviousness rejection of claims 23 and 24
over Demeter.
Claim 11 recites "a regulating device . . . adapted to
continuously adjust a speed of rotation of said motor, within
a predetermined speed range by decreasing a voltage supplied
to said motor." The examiner rejects the claims as being
indefinite, stating (Answer, page 6) that "the claims omits
[sic] essential elements or steps" because "one can not solely
operate a motor speed device by only 'decreasing a voltage
supplied to said motor.' One must recite the ability to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007