Appeal Number: 2006-0448
Application Number: 10/432,753
means for switching over the usually-specified optimal efficiency operating state
to the dynamically optimal operating state before operating procedures in the motor
vehicle which require a rapid torque setting.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Boberg US 5,959,420 Sep. 28, 1999
Henneken US 6,263,273 B1 Jul. 17, 2001
Takaoka EP 1 127 730 A1 Aug. 29, 2001
Claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Boberg.
Claims 9 through 12, 15 through 17, 19, 20, and 23 through 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Takaoka.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Takaoka in view of Henneken.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (mailed July 22, 2005) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ Brief (filed
June 13, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed September 26, 2005) for appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior art references, and the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the anticipation rejections of claims 9 through 17, 19, 20, and 23
through 25 and also reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 18.
As pointed out by appellants (Brief, page 10 and Reply Brief, page 4),
independent claim 9 requires a means for switching from an optimal efficiency operating
state to a dynamically optimal operating state “before operating procedures in the motor
vehicle which require a rapid torque setting.” Appellants assert (Brief, page 11) that in
Boberg “there are no statements as to when such a switching should take place,” and
(Reply Brief, page 4) that nowhere did the Answer specifically address how the Boberg
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007