Ex parte HEGLUND - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1999-1941                                                        
          Application No. 08/629,700                                                  


          the switched reluctance machine in four finite states in                    
          dependence upon the detected current magnitude flowing in the               
          machine winding during each of the four finite states without               
          determining machine rotor position.  Claim 1 is reproduced below            
          for further understanding of the invention.                                 
               1.  A control for a switched reluctance machine having a               
          machine rotor and a machine winding coupled to a power                      
          converter, comprising:                                                      
               means for detecting a magnitude of current flowing in the              
                         machine winding; and                                         
               means responsive to the detecting means for controlling                
                    commutation of the switched reluctance machine in four            
                    finite states in dependence upon the detected current             
                         magnitude flowing in the machine winding during              
          each of        said four finite states without determining                  
          machine rotor            position.                                          
               The Examiner relies on the following references:                       
          MacMinn et al. (MacMinn)           4,739,240           Apr. 19,             
          1988                                                                        
          Lyons et al. (Lyons)          5,140,244           Aug. 18, 1992             
               Claims 1 to 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                 
          being unpatentable over Lyons in view of MacMinn.                           
               Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the                  
          Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for                 
          their respective details thereof.                                           


                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007