Appeal No. 2002-1066
Application No. 09/304,021
In addition, the examiner relies upon appellants’ admission
of prior art (hereinafter, AAPA) on pages 10-11 of the
specification concerning the existence of a certain commercially
available direct torque variable frequency drive control.
Claims 1, 6-8, 19, 20 and 22-24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yankaitis in view
of Green.
Claims 4, 5, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yankaitis in view of Green
and further in view of AAPA.
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 15 and 21) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
17) for the respective positions of appellants and the examiner
regarding the merits of these rejections.
Discussion
Yankaitis1, the examiner’s primary reference, pertains to a
wire cutting apparatus. The thrust of Yankaitis is the provision
of an improved release assembly 46 “which allows for dynamic
alteration of a number of the cut parameters” (column 6, lines
1Like the above mentioned Burns patent, Yankaitis is also
discussed in the “Background Of The Invention” section of
appellants’ specification.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007