Appeal No. 2003-1836 Page 14
Application No.10/085,590
Here, claim 22 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "stop[ping] a
motor for driving said compressor." Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require stopping a motor for driving the compressor in
response to a fault.
b. Obviousness Determination
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. Here, we agree with the
examiner's finding that Persem stops a motor for driving its compressor in response to
a fault. As aforementioned, the reference shuts down the motor and sets the state to
CYCLEOFF when the compressor's capacity exceeds the load. Col. 12, ll. 13-16. We
find that Millet also stops a motor for driving its compressor in response to a fault. As
also aforementioned, the reference stops operation of the scroll machine once an
undesirable characteristic is identified. Abs., ll. 12-14. Therefore, we affirm the
obviousness rejection of claim 22.
5. Storing Fault Identifying Data
The examiner finds that "col. 10, ll. 55 and 56, of PERSEM . . . state that '[i]f any
of these fault conditions occurs, the error is logged in the system's memory 72. . . . .'"
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007