Appeal No. 1997-1337
Application 08/467,000
We reverse.
Independent claims 16 and 19 on appeal both recite in
some manner the establishment of a threshold value of load
current based on an actual voltage being applied to the motor,
with the further general recitation that an overload state of
the motor recited is determined on the basis of the comparison
of a variation in the load current and this established
threshold value. We agree with appellant's assertions that
Washeleski fails to teach the establishment of the threshold
value of load current based on the actual voltage being
applied to the motor and consequently the determination of the
comparison feature of both independent claims 16 and 19.
It is clear that Washeleski detects a variation of load
current of a motor over a predetermined period of time.
Although there is a determination of the threshold value
according to the obstruction detection teachings at column 6
in the calibration and operation modes in the form of data
collected over time of a normal motor's operation being placed
into a table as a template, there is no teaching or suggestion
in accordance with the soft and hard obstruction detection
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007