Appeal No. 2002-0831
Application 08/250,286
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived by appellants [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner’s rejection is explained on pages 4-6 of the
answer. With respect to claims 35 and 44, appellants argue that
Toyoshima fails to disclose or suggest a motor control apparatus
that allows a motor to be used in multiple appliance
environments. Specifically, appellants argue that Toyoshima
discloses a controller that operates a single appliance, that is,
a vacuum cleaner. Appellants argue that there is nothing in
Toyoshima which would lead one skilled in the art to attempt to
use the disclosed control system in a different appliance.
Appellants also argue that the programming means of claim 35 has
not been addressed by the examiner, and they note that external
memory 43 of Toyoshima is not taught as loading machine
information associated with various appliance environments into
memory for use in different appliance environments [brief, pages
17-21].
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007