Appeal No. 2003-1836 Page 7
Application No.10/085,590
at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617 (citing Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir.
1995)).
Here, we find that evidence to combine flows from the references themselves.
Persem discloses "a refrigeration compressor system," col. 1, ll. 6-7, which "includ[es]
the compressor 22 and its control[ler] mechanisms." Col. 5, ll. 9-11. "The core of the
controller 40 is a small computer 56, using a microprocessor (e.g., the INTEL 8088) for
its central processing unit. The computer 56 receives input signals indicative of the
state of the system . . . ." Col. 6, ll. 11-14. These input signals comprise "a
temperature signal from temperature probe 60 . . . [,] a suction pressure signal from
pressure gauge 62 . . . [,] a discharge pressure signal from pressure gauge 64[,] . . .
a motor speed feedback signal[,]" id. at 23-29; "a fault signal from the inverter 48, and a
signal indicating a low oil condition in the compressor apparatus 22." Id. at ll. 32-35
(emphases added).
A "fault checking routine . . . checks for the following faults: (1) is the discharge
pressure above a specified limit . . . , (2) is the suction pressure below a specified
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007