Appeal No. 2003-1836 Page 15
Application No.10/085,590
(Examiner's Answer at 6.) The appellants argue, "[c]laim 23 requires that data is stored
at the control for later retrieval. Nothing in Persem . . . discloses this feature." (Appeal
Br. at 7.)
a. Claim Construction
Claim 23 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "said data is also
stored at said control for later retrieval." Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require storing data representing the fault.
b. Obviousness Determination
We agree with the examiner's finding that Persem stores data representing a
fault. As aforementioned, if any of monitored fault conditions occurs, the reference logs
the error is logged in its memory 72. Col. 10, ll. 55-56. Therefore, we affirm the
obviousness rejection of claim 23.
C. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PERSEM, MILLET, AND VOSS
Finding that "Voss et al. disclose an electric motor compressor having
controls 44, 46 mounted within the compressor housing for improved cooling of the
electronic components (col. 4, l. 44)," (Final Rej. at 4), the examiner asserts, "it would
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007