Appeal No. 2003-0558 2
Application No. 09/477,601
vehicle. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
representative claims 1 and 9, which appear in the appendix to appellant’s brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Fanti et al. (Fanti) 4,714,127 Dec. 22, 1987
Taga et al. (Taga) 4,768,609 Sep. 6, 1988
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Taga.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taga
in view of Fanti.
Reference is made to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 13) and to the examiner’s final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 7 and 14) for the respective positions of appellant and
the examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
Discussion
We take up first for consideration the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 9, the
two independent claims on appeal, as being anticipated by Taga.
Method claim 1 includes the steps of determining a vehicle condition corresponding
to load, comparing the determined vehicle condition to a predetermined value, wherein if
the determined vehicle condition exceeds the predetermined value, a high load condition
exists, and redistributing driving torque between the front and rear wheels, when the
determining step determines that a high load condition exists.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007