Appeal No. 2002-0470
Application No. 08/612,211
movement of the accelerator as called for in step (d) of claim 1
after the three conditions set forth in step (d) are satisfied.
The three conditions are: (1) the actual vehicle moving condition
becomes in compliance with a second vehicle drive mode, (2) a
second vehicle drive mode is ordered by the operator for
canceling a first vehicle drive mode, and (3) the output torque
of the vehicle drive motor ordered in accordance with the
movement of the accelerator is decreased to not more than a
decreased actual output torque of the vehicle drive motor. Among
other things, Ichihara does not consider the situation where the
operator orders a second vehicle drive mode for canceling a first
vehicle drive mode. On this basis, the rejection based on
Ichihara will not be sustained.
The examiner’s comments on page 6 of the answer regarding
Ichihara have been considered. Like appellants, we do not
consider the target speed of Ichihara, which is derived by the
controller 100 based on signals from change speed lever 11,
backward/forward changeover switch 13, and accelerator lever 13,
to be comparable to one of appellants’ drive modes (e.g.,
forward, reverse, neutral, park). Likewise, we do not consider
changes in the target speed of Ichihara to be comparable to
appellant’s condition of an operator canceling a first drive mode
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007