Appeal 2007-0904
Application 11/025,331
C. Claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 13, and 17 through 21 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Okushima in view of
Xu.
D. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Okushima in view of Xu, and further in view of Cook.
E. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Okushima in view of Xu, and further in view of Cook.
First, Appellants contend1 that Katagiri does not anticipate claims 1,
6, 9, 16, 18 and 21. Particularly, Appellants contend that Katagiri does not
fairly teach or suggest an inverter having an electrical communication with
more than one motor, as recited in representative claim 1. (Br. 6.)
Similarly, Appellants contend that Katagiri does not teach a power module
having two independent power stages for driving a plurality of motors, as
recited in representative claim 1. (Reply Br. 2.) In response, the Examiner
contends that Katagiri teaches the cited limitations, and therefore anticipates
representative claim 1. (Answer 3 and 11.)
Second, Appellants contend that Katagiri does not render claims 3
through 5, 7, 19, and 20 unpatentable. Particularly, Appellants reiterate that,
among other things, Katagiri does not teach an inverter having a power
module with two separate power stages for driving a plurality of electric
motors, as claimed. (Br. 7.) The Examiner, in contrast, contends that
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354
F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013