Appeal No. 98-0984
Application 08/428,561
Rejection (3)
The examiner asserts that it would have been
obvious, in view of Shaw, "to have modified the system of Voss
such that it included a bi-directional motor" (final
rejection, pages 4 to 5). We disagree. One of ordinary
skill would not substitute a bidirectional motor for the motor
34 of Voss, because if Voss' motor were run in the reverse
direction, compressor impellers 36, 38 would be inoperative.
Assuming that the examiner intended to state that it
would have been obvious to use a bidirectional motor and
compressor, as disclosed by Shaw, as the motor and compressor
in the Voss system, we still do not consider the rejection to
be proper. In the first place, we find no suggestion in Voss
that the system disclosed therein could or should be operated
in a reverse direction. Secondly, as appellant points out in
his brief, claim 14 requires that the commutation circuit "is
adapted to start and commutate the bi-directional motor in
either a clockwise or a counterclockwise direction," and there
is no disclosure or suggestion of this feature in the prior
art applied.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007