Appeal 2007-0904
Application 11/025,331
Katagiri’s teachings render claims 3 through 5, 7, 19, and 20 unpantentable.
(Answer 5 and 6.)
Third, Appellants contend that Okushima taken in combination with
either Xu and/or Cook does not render claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9 through 15, and 17
through 22 unpatentable. Particularly, Appellants contend that Okushima
does not teach a plurality of motors connected to a single inverter. (Br. 7.)
Similarly, Appellants contend that, among other things, neither Okushima
nor Xu teaches an inverter having a power module with two separate power
stages for driving a plurality of electric motors, as claimed. (Reply Br. 4 and
5.) The Examiner, in contrast, contends that both Xu and Cook complement
Okushima’s teachings to yield the invention as recited in claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9
through 15, and 17 through 22. (Answer 6 through 10 and 12.) Therefore,
the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine the teachings of the cited references to render the
cited claims unpatentable. (Id.)
We affirm-in-part.
ISSUES
The pivotal issues in the appeal before us are as follows:
(1) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner failed to establish that the
disclosure of Katagiri anticipates the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), when Katagiri teaches a biaxial inverter unit having two
inverters for separately driving a plurality of electric motors?
(2) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner failed to establish that one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the present invention, would have
found that Katagiri’s disclosure renders the claimed invention
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013