Appeal No. 2002-0831
Application 08/250,286
such as disclosed by Toyoshima were conventionally used in a
plurality of different environments such as those claimed. We
find no logical argument presented as to why the artisan would
not have found it obvious to use the Toyoshima motor control in
environments other than vacuum cleaners.
With respect to claims 48 and 49, appellants argue that
Toyoshima does not teach or suggest controlling the vacuum
cleaner with a master controller such as a thermostat. With
respect to claim 52, appellants argue that Toyoshima does not
teach or suggest controlling the start delay, stop delay and air
flow of a furnace blower [brief, page 22]. The examiner notes
that a furnace blower is disclosed as admitted prior art. The
examiner finds that a thermostat and the control of start delay,
stop delay and air flow are conventional for a furnace blower
[answer, page 10]. Appellants respond that Toyoshima does not
teach a master controller or a thermostat [reply brief, page 17].
We will sustain the rejection of claims 48, 49 and 52 because
appellants have not presented any arguments as to why the artisan
would not have been motivated to use the control system of
Toyoshima with one of the other admitted prior art environments
such as a furnace blower. We agree with the examiner that if the
Toyoshima control system were used in the admitted prior art of
-13-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007