Appeal No. 1997-3237
Application 08/266,081
its generator mode in Fig. 2 with different efficiency levels
achieved by changing the current and rotor flux.
In view of the above and in light of the specification as
a whole, we find that the steps of operating the motor at two
different operating points with different efficiency levels
and providing a battery for receiving the regeneration current
are sufficiently defined and would reasonably appraise those
skilled in the art of the scope of these limitations.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Turning to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
102, Appellants argue on pages 1 and 2 of the reply brief that
Kanzaki’s motor does not have any different operating points.
Appellants further point out that Kanzaki connects and
disconnects a load from the motor without changing the
operating point.
The Examiner on page 2 of the supplemental answer
responds to Appellants’ arguments by stating that claim 1 does
not recite changing of the operating points but merely
requires the motor be in a regeneration mode at a second point
of reduced efficiency. The Examiner characterizes the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007