Appeal No. 1998-1231 Page 13
Application No. 08/729,835
From all of the above, we conclude that Yoshida does not
anticipate claim 1 as advanced by the examiner. Claims 2-4
depend from claim 1. Claim 5 contains similar language as
claim 1 with respect to the prevention of motor torque
disturbances. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-5 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 6-11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yoshida. Independent claim
6 contains essentially identical language as claim 1 with
respect to preventing motor torque disturbances. We therefore
reverse this rejection for the same reasons advanced with
respect to claims
1-5, supra. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 6-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007