Ex Parte Gandrud et al - Page 2

                 Appeal 2007-0904                                                                                      
                 Application 11/025,331                                                                                
                        Appellants invented an alternating current inverter for use in an                              
                 electrically powered fork lift truck.  Particularly, the invention uses an                            
                 inverter to drive a plurality of electric motors.  (Specification 1.)                                 
                        Claim 1 is illustrative and representative of the claimed invention.  It                       
                 reads as follows:                                                                                     
                    1.  An alternating current inverter comprising:                                                    
                    a housing;                                                                                         
                    a power module within the housing;                                                                 
                    a direct current source in electrical communication with the housing;                              
                    a plurality of electric motors in electrical communication with the power                          
                 module; and                                                                                           
                    the power module having two separate and independently drivable power                              
                 stages for driving the electric motors.                                                               
                                                                                                                      
                 In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the                                       
                 following prior art:                                                                                  
                 Katagiri                        US 5,619,111            Apr. 8, 1997                                  
                 Cook            US 5,789,879            Aug. 4, 1998                                                  
                 Okushima           US 6,486,632 B2            Nov. 26, 2002                                           
                 Xu                                   US 6,906,479 B2       Jun. 14, 2005                              
                 The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows:                                                
                 A. Claims 1, 6, 9, 16, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                            
                 being anticipated by Katagiri.                                                                        
                 B. Claims 3 through 5, 7, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                                   
                 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katagiri.                                                           


                                                          2                                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013