Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
void of contributions resulting from the current ripples
contained in the armature current signal [brief, pages 10-12].
The examiner responds that the claims do not require that
the two signals be based on different things, but only that the
armature current signal and the voltage signal be “of the motor”
which is met by Matsumoto and Falk. The examiner also responds
that appellant’s arguments admit that the combination provides a
voltage signal “of the motor” and that Falk teaches removing
interference from the armature current signal using a voltage
signal that includes the interference [answer, pages 7-10].
Appellant responds that the superimposed signal of Falk
includes a residual interference component which implies that the
interference components of the current signal and the voltage
signal are not the same. Thus, appellant argues that Falk does
not teach obtaining a current signal having an interference
component and obtaining a voltage signal having the interference
component. Appellant also asserts that he did not admit that
Falk teaches removing interference from a current signal using a
voltage signal that contains the interference [reply brief, pages
2-4].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007