Appeal No. 1997-0397
Application 07/863,900
that the limitations about selection of the capacitor value to vary
the power output are statements of intended use which do not
patentably distinguish the invention.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 16) and the
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 22) for a statement of the Examiner's
position, and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 21) (pages referred to
as "Br__") and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 24) (pages referred to as
"RBr__") for Appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been
obvious to combine the motor of Sato with the circuit of Gerfast to
arrive at a combination of a brushless DC motor and a control circuit
having a capacitor in series with the winding turns. It appears to
us that the hardware of claim 66 is common to most, if not all,
brushless DC motors; i.e., that no special motor hardware limitations
are recited. Nevertheless, Sato discloses a brushless DC motor
having the claimed motor hardware. Sato does not disclose the nature
of the DC voltage source. Gerfast discloses that a DC voltage for a
brushless DC motor can be derived from AC using a rectifier circuit
having a capacitor to limit the current, but does not disclose any
details of the motor hardware. Gerfast discloses that the size of
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007