Appeal 2007-0939
Application 10/931,274
art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51
USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if granting patent
protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the
public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless
of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”) (internal
citations omitted).
Independent claims 1 and 9
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 9 as being
anticipated by Kojima. Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to this
rejection have treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall
together, we will select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for
this rejection because we find claim 1 is the broader claim. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that Kojima does not disclose an ARCTAN function
based upon a frequency of operation of the motor (Br. 4-5).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that Kojima discloses
the signal sent to the second transformation [block] contains the frequency
of operation of the motor (Answer 5).
We begin our analysis by noting that the Examiner, as finder of fact,
has read the recited “ARCTAN function” on Kojima’s “tan-1 COMPUTING
UNIT 41” (Fig. 8, col. 10, l. 67). We note the “θ1” output of “tan-1
COMPUTING UNIT 41” is shown in Fig. 7 as the single output of “PHASE
CORRECTION SETTING CONTROL UNIT 21b” that feeds the rotational
angle “θ1” (i.e., phase correction value, col. 11, ll. 2-3, col. 6, l. 30) into
“TWO PHASE/THREE PHASE CONVERTER 4” (i.e., corresponding to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013