Appeal 2007-3939
Application 10/448,725
We agree with the Examiner’s characterization of measuring the
current rise as a part of the RPD during such period as applying a non-
rotational inducing current (FF 6-7). In that regard, the current applied to
energize the rotor, when the motor is coasting to perform the RPD
procedure, is not the same as the full scale current applied to provide the
forward torque to the rotor and, therefore, can be properly construed to be a
non-rotational inducing current.
Additionally, Appellant points to the limitation of claim 1 related to
“determining a substantially accurate position of the rotor” and presents
similar arguments discussed above with respect to claim 9. Thus, in view of
the analysis above and the teachings of Calfee related to determining the
position of the rotor, we find that Calfee prima facie anticipates claim 1, as
well as claims 2-6 and 8, which are argued together with representative
claim 1 (Br. 5).
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, the Examiner has made a prima facie case
that Calfee anticipates claims 1-6 and 8-19. 1 Therefore, in view of our
1 The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph for being indefinite and failure to recite method steps which lack a
relational correspondence among their elements (Final Rejection 2-3).
However, this rejection appears to be withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer
which leaves these two claims as objected to for being dependent upon
rejected base claims, but probably considered allowable if rewritten to
include all of the limitations of their base claim and any intervening claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013