Appeal No. 1998-0507
Application No. 08/457,701
Since Kitajewski is from a nonanalogous art, it is not properly combinable with Sato
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Since Schaefer does not remedy the deficiency of Sato in “pulsing
energizing power supplied to said Hall device,” as claimed, we will not sustain
the rejection of claims 21, 22 and 76-87 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sato, Kitajewski and
Schaefer.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 76-87 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Morinaga,
Gerfast and Müller.
It is the examiner’s position that Morinaga discloses a brushless motor and control
circuit “essentially as claimed except for providing a capacitor in series with the input of the
rectifier and providing the Hall effect element such that it receives power from the rectifier”
[final rejection-page 3]. The examiner employs Gerfast for the teaching of a capacitor 28
in series with the input to a rectifier which can be utilized to provide power to the winding of
a brushless DC motor. The examiner contends that it would have been obvious to provide
a capacitor in series with the motor winding of Morinaga in order to control the amount of
current supplied to the motor, as disclosed by Gerfast.
As to the Hall effect device connected to receive power from the rectifier, the
examiner relies on Müller for the teaching of the notoriety of connecting a Hall element
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007