Appeal 2007-3939
Application 10/448,725
that such determination is not the same as determining a substantially
accurate position of the rotor, as claimed (id.). The Examiner argues that
Appellant has not specified the degree of accuracy for the claimed
determination of a substantially accurate rotor position (Answer 5). In that
regard, the Examiner asserts that determining the rotor position made by
Calfee is accurate enough to read on the broad language of claim 9 (id.).
We agree with the Examiner and find that the claimed term
“substantially accurate” lacks specific requirements as to how accurate the
position of rotor needs to be determined. As such, based on the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim, we find that the claimed “determining
a substantially accurate position of the rotor” is taught by Calfee. In view of
the analysis above, we find that Calfee prima facie anticipates claim 9 as the
reference teaches all the recited features. Additionally, Appellant argues
claims 10-19 together with the representative claim 9 (Br. 4) and thus,
allows these claims to fall with claim 9.
2. Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that Calfee does not
disclose application of a non-rotational current, as required by claim 1 (Br.
4). Appellant refers to current value ITH as a percentage of IMAX and asserts
that Calfee does not show that ITH is a non-rotational inducing current (id.).
The Examiner responds by relying on the description of how an RPD
procedure is done during the time the drive current to the motor is cut off
and the motor is allowed to coast to characterize the applied current as a
non-rotational inducing current (Answer 5-6).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013