Appeal No. 2002-0831
Application 08/250,286
furnace blowers, then the master controller would include a
thermostat and the claimed functions would be controlled.
With respect to claims 50 and 51, appellants argue that
Toyoshima makes no mention of using the disclosed drive apparatus
to operate different versions of a vacuum cleaner or for vacuum
cleaners made by different manufacturers [brief, pages 22-23].
The examiner responds that Toyoshima teaches these features at
column 10, lines 34-41 [answer, page 10]. Appellants respond by
disagreeing with this assertion by the examiner [reply brief,
page 17].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 50
and 51 because the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. Claim 50 defines the phrase “said plurality
of appliance environments” as comprising a plurality of versions
of a given appliance. Claim 51 defines the phrase “said
plurality of versions of the given appliance” as comprising
versions of the given appliance made by different manufacturers.
These definitions are not met by the different appliance
environments of Toyoshima that we discussed above. The portion
of Toyoshima identified by the examiner only suggests that a
different type of motor can be used in the Toyoshima appliance.
It does not relate to different versions of a given appliance or
-14-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007