Appeal No. 2003-0558 6
Application No. 09/477,601
at col. 13, lines 50-64, and elsewhere in the specification can be construed as reading on
the determining step of claim 1, Taga does not compare any determined vehicle condition
(e.g., Ti or Tf) to a predetermined value, such as Tmax, as implied by the examiner in
asserting that Taga’s method of operation includes steps that correspond to the
comparing step of claim 1.
For these same reasons, the examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent to
us, how Taga anticipates the above noted limitation appearing in the last paragraph of
claim 9 directed to the comparator of the claimed system. In this regard, the examiner’s
statement that “the remaining structural limitations in claim 9 are conventional in the art
and cited in the original rejection” (answer, page 5) does not suffice.
In light of the foregoing, we must agree with appellant’s argument at the top of page
8 of the brief to the effect that Taga does not respond to the limitations of claims 1 and 9
setting forth that torque redistribution does not occur until the determined vehicle condition
exceeds a predetermined value. It follows that we cannot sustain the standing rejection of
claims 1 and 9, as well as claims 2-5, 7, 8 and 10-14 that depend therefrom, as being
anticipated by Taga.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007