Ex Parte Gandrud et al - Page 10

                 Appeal 2007-0904                                                                                      
                 Application 11/025,331                                                                                
                 invention as claimed.  Therefore, it follows that the Examiner did not err in                         
                 rejecting claims 3 through 5, 7, 19, and 20 as being unpatentable over                                
                 Katagiri.                                                                                             
                        Now, we turn to the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 6, 7, 9 through                        
                 15, and 17 through 22 as being unpatentable over Okushima in combination                              
                 with Xu and/or Cook.  As set forth above, representative claim 1 requires 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 findings of fact section above, we have                          
                 found that Okushima teaches an inverter set with two individual inverters,                            
                 each separately driving a motor.  (Finding of Fact 8.)  We do not find,                               
                 however, any teaching in Okushima of a power module within an inverter,                               
                 wherein the power module includes two separate stages for independently                               
                 driving the motors.  We further find that neither Xu nor Cook cures such                              
                 deficiencies.4  In light of these findings, it is our view that one of ordinary                       
                 skill in the art would not have found it obvious to combine the teachings of                          
                 Okushima with Xu and/or Cook to yield the invention as claimed.                                       
                 Therefore, it follows that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3 through                        
                 5, 6, 7, 9 through 15, and 17 through 22 as being unpatentable over the                               
                 combination of Okushima with Xu and/or Cook.                                                          
                                                                                                                      
                 4 We note that, unlike Katagiri’s inverter unit, Okushima’s inverter set                              
                 merely includes the two inverters without any other supporting components                             
                 that would cause each of the inverters in the set to function like a separate                         
                 stage of a power module.  In Katagiri, the inverter unit itself can be viewed                         
                 as the claimed inverter while the individual inverters in conjunction with                            
                 other supporting components make up the stages of the power module that                               
                 separately drive the motors.  However, In Okushima, the inverter set cannot                           
                 be viewed as being both the inverters and the power module.                                           
                                                          10                                                           

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013