Appeal No. 1999-1790
Application 08/707,206
a status device for generating a door status signal indicative
of the status of the door; and
controller means for controlling initial pulses of current to
said electromagnet, said initial pulses initiated in response to
said door status signal and each said initial pulse having a
preestablished initial pulse width and a preestablished initial
pulse spacing between initial pulses.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Hines 4,608,620 Aug. 26, 1986
Oyama et al. (Oyama) 4,878,147 Oct. 31, 1989
Waltz et al. (Waltz) 5,184,855 Feb. 9, 1993
All claims on appeal, claims 1 through 24, stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies
upon Waltz in view of Oyama as to claims 1 through 3, 5 through 16
and 18 through 23, with the addition of Hines to this combination as
to claims 4, 17 and 24.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief for appellants’ positions
and to the Office action in Paper No. 5 mailed on December 2, 1997
as well as the answer for the examiner’s position.
OPINION
We reverse.
According to the examiner’s views at page 2 of Paper No. 5,
the examiner takes the view that Waltz teaches everything in the
independent claims on appeal but the feature relating to pulse
width modulation (PWM). This latter feature is set forth in the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007