Appeal No. 97-0210
Application No. 08/157,050
does not support what is actually claimed. As explained
above, appellant discloses that the speed becomes continuously
adjustable once the voltage is decreased below a certain
level, whereas the claims recite that the speed continuously
adjusts while lowering the voltage. Accordingly, we reverse
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and
enter a new ground of rejection below under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.
The examiner further asserts that claim 11 is anticipated
by either Viandon or Demeter. The examiner states (Final
Rejection, page 3):
Applicant also argues that '187 [Viandon] only
teaches step-wise adjustment. Claim 2 [sic, 12] as
well as many others of the present claims clearly
teaches that applicant's control is also stepwise.
Thus the examiner believes that this reference
clearly anticipates claim 11. . . . Demeter et al.
also teaches a step wise control however once again
so does applicant. In claim 1 [sic, 11], it is
recited that within a first speed range the
adjustment is continuous. In claim 2 [sic, 12] it
is recited that [sic, for] part of the speed range
stepwise adjustment is performed. Therefor [sic] it
is clear that continuous adjustment can be said to
be performed by stepwise adjustment.
In other words, the examiner states that neither reference
teaches continuous adjustment of the speed. The examiner
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007