Appeal No. 2001-2654 Page 4
Application No. 09/069,192
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Claim 1 reads as follows:
An industrial robot comprising a manipulator body
structure of articulated members mounted for rotative
movement about respective axes thereof, drive means at
each of said axes to effect the respective rotative
movements, each of said drive means comprising at least
one electric driving motor capable of operating up to a
predetermined maximum temperature without the use of a
cooling fan, control equipment means for driving and
controlling each of said respective drive means, said
respective control equipment means comprising at least
one rectifier and drive devices each capable of
withstanding heat generated up to a maximum temperature
of approximately one-half the predetermined maximum
temperature of the motor likewise without the use of any
cooling fan, said drive devices being operatively
connected respectively to said motors, each of said drive
devices being mounted only on selected areas of said body
structure other than at each said motor, and each of said
drive devices being spaced a predetermined distance from
said respective motors to which said drive devices are
operatively connected, said body structure thereby
functioning to absorb the waste heat generated by said
drive devices, to spread the waste heat throughout the
body structure, and to transfer the waste heat solely by
convection to the ambient air.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007