Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s position with respect to the teachings of Cook is that the
prior art combination of pulsed input signal and the PWM used for detecting
obstacles (Br. 8; Reply Br. 4) is not the same as the claimed using the same
signal for both functions (Br. 7; Reply Br. 4). We disagree. As asserted by
the Examiner (Answer 4), we find that there is nothing in the claims that
requires using only the pulse modulated signal to determine an obstruction
and exclude the other signals from making obstacle determination.
We also note that contrary to Appellant’s assertion that Cook uses
PWM signal for controlling the motor while pulsed input signal provides the
motor’s current measurement (Reply Br. 5), pulsed input signals are used
both for controlling motor speed (FF 4 & 5) and obstacle detection (FF 8)
although the duty cycle of drive motor is adjusted using pulse width
modulation of the signal (FF 7). As long as the pulsed input signal is, in
some way, used to control the speed of motor movement (FF 5 & 7) and to
detect obstruction (FF 8), the broad recitation of “applying” and “using”
pulse modulation information in the claims reads on the control method of
Cook.
Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claims and
considering our analysis above, we find that Cook anticipates the subject
matter recited in claim 12 as the reference teaches all the recited features.
Additionally, Appellant does not argue claim 17 separately from claim 12
(Br. 7-10) and thus, allows claim 17 to fall with claim 12.
With respect to the rejection of claims 13 and 16, Appellant argues
that the portion of Cook in columns 3 and 9 relied on by the Examiner
contain unrelated concepts and do not teach the maximum allowed force
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013