Appeal No. 2001-1309
Application No. 08/964,780
Suriano counteracts the tendency of increasing motor speed as motor brushes
become seated by providing a brush geometry which causes the effective angular
position of a brush to change during the seating process. That is, the effective contact
angle of the brush changes. The change is in a direction which tends to reduce speed.
Appellant points to Suriano’s Figure 15 to urge that the reference depicts only
two regions of speed over time, separated by a peak occurring around 40% of brush
seating. This argument appears to be in agreement with Suriano’s disclosure. Even
Suriano’s claims are directed to increasing motor speed during initial stages of brush
seating, wherein motor speed peaks at about 40% of brush seating, and then
decreasing the motor speed after peaking.
The instant claims, as argued by appellant at pages 9-10 of the principal brief,
are directed to a specific sequence of speed behavior, viz., constant, then decreasing,
then constant. Thus, there is a decreasing period between two constant periods during
a motor’s lifetime. Moreover, that decreasing period is a “progressively” decreasing
period.” Suriano, on the other hand, discloses an increasing period followed by a
decreasing period. Thus, the claimed sequence of a constant speed-progressively
decreasing speed-constant speed is not disclosed or suggested by Suriano.
The examiner counters with the argument that it is Suriano’s Figure 16C on
which the examiner relies. The examiner alleges that this figure suggests that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007