Appeal No. 2000-0105
Application No. 08/573,247
their definition of the “at least one characteristic
variable,” which is defined in claim 23 as “a drop of speed of
said variable-speed electric drive motor per time during or
after an impulse emission,” in claim 24 as
a profile of an induced armature voltage of the variable speed
electric drive motor when no current is flowing through the
variable speed electric drive motor,” and in claim 25 as “a
profile of a current of said variable-speed electric drive
motor.
A copy of these claims is included in an appendix to
appellants’ brief, except that this copy does not include the1
changes made by the amendment filed on October 1, 1998, entry
of which was approved by the examiner per paragraph 2 of Paper
No. 24 (November 5, 1998). 2
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Maruyama et al. (Maruyama) 5,181,575 Jan. 26,
1993
Anders et al. (Anders) 5,439,063 Aug.
8, 1995
1Any references herein to appellants’ brief are to the
brief filed on December 29, 1998 (Paper No. 27).
2In reviewing the claims, we note that “a tightening
process” (two occurrences) and “a desired value” in, for
example, lines 16 and 17 of claim 23, are not related back to
these terms as previously recited. In any subsequent
prosecution, “a” should be changed to “the” or “said”.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007