Appeal No. 1998-0398
Application No. 08/284,160
skilled artisan. Accordingly, the lack of enablement
rejection is reversed.
In the obviousness rejection, the examiner and the
appellants agree that the inverter disclosed by Ernest
controls either a three-phase motor (Figure 5) or a two-phase
motor (Figure 7) (Final rejection, page 6; Brief, page 10).
The examiner took Official Notice (Final rejection, page 6)
that “to run a single phase motor with two windings, a run and
a start, is well known in the art.” In the absence of a
challenge by the appellants, we will accept the examiner’s
statement as true that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of Ernest would have known to substitute this single
phase motor for that shown in figure 7 depending on the
availability of motors and the desired function of the motor”
(Final rejection, page 6).
Although appellants did not challenge the taking of
Official Notice, they did, however, challenge (Brief, pages 11
and 12) the examiner’s conclusion that “[t]he distinction of
high speed pulse-width modulation is not a patentable
distinction” (Final rejection, page 6). We agree with
appellants that Ernest is completely silent concerning
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007