Appeal No. 2003-1836 Page 13
Application No.10/085,590
4. Stopping a Motor
The examiner finds that in Persem, "[i]f the compressor's capacity exceeds the
load even when running at its minimum speed, the controller will shut down the motor
(col. 12, para. 1)." (Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellants argue, "it is clear from
the claim that it is a signal which is based upon a detection of a fault. For this additional
reason, Claim 22 is allowable." (Reply Br. at 3.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claim would have been obvious.
a. Claim Construction
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007