Appeal No. 1998-0212 Page 21
Reissue Application No. 07/837,588
further differs from nonelected claim 36 and 37 in that it
contains the added step of sensing the load on the rotor.
Although a similar step is present in nonelected claim 37, the
appealed claim specifically refers to sensing the load on the
‘rotor’ unlike nonelected claim 37.” (Id. at 5-6.)
This argument is an overstatement. Like claim 85, claim
37 specifies in pertinent part the limitations of “an electric
motor driving said agitator” and “sensing load on said motor.”
Claim 85 merely adds a rotor to the electric motor and the
sensing step of claim 37. Claims are not interpreted in a
vacuum but are part of and are read in light of the
specification. Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810
F.2d 1113, 1116, 1 USPQ2d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Here, the specification includes the following disclosure
about the electronically commutated motor (ECM) of claim 37.
The ECM 2 constitutes a stationary assembly
having a plurality of winding stages adapted to be
selectively commutated, and rotatable means
associated with that stationary assembly in
selective magnetic coupling relation with the
winding stages. The winding stages are commutated
without brushes by sensing the rotational position
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007