Appeal No. 97-0210
Application No. 08/157,050
asynchronous, but Demeter does not disclose two speed ranges,
one with a continuous change in the speed and the other with a
stepwise change in the speed, both for an asynchronous motor.
Accordingly, we must reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 2 through 22.
Similarly, claim 22 recites an upper speed range in which
the speed is adjusted stepwise and a lower speed range in
which the speed is adjusted continuously. As previously
stated, Demeter does not disclose a continuous and a stepwise
speed range for an asynchronous motor. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 22.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection against appellant's claims
11 through 21, 23, and 24:
Claims 11 through 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for the reasons explained
above.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 11 through
21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph; claim
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007