Appeal 2007-0904
Application 11/025,331
disclosed circuitry inside the inverter unit operates as two separate stages for
driving motors M1 and M2. Particularly, we find that the first stage of the
circuit includes a dead time forming section (51), which forwards the
incoming DC voltage to the first inverter (52) to power the motor M1.
Similarly, we find the second stage of the circuit includes another dead time
forming section (55) which forwards the received DC voltage to the second
inverter (56) to drive the second motor M2. Consequently, we find that
these two stages of the circuit inside the inverter unit constitute a power
module for separately driving the two motors M1 and M2. In light of these
findings, it is our view that Katagiri does teach the cited limitations of
representative claim 1. It follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 1 and 21 as being anticipated by Katagiri.
Appellants did not provide separate arguments with respect to the
rejection of dependent claims 6, 9, 16 and 18 as being anticipated by
Katagiri. Therefore, they fall together with representative claim 1. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTIONS
Now, we turn to the rejection of claims 3 through 5, 7, 19, and 20 as
being unpatentable Katagiri. We note that these dependent claims also
require a power module, comprised within the housing of an inverter, having
two separate and independently drivable power stages for driving a plurality
of electric motors. As detailed in the discussion of representative claim 1
above, we have found that Katagiri teaches such limitations. In light of
these findings, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found obvious these limitations over Katagiri’s disclosure to yield the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013