Appeal Number: 2006-0448
Application Number: 10/432,753
reference identically describes (or even suggests) the claim 9 feature of means for
switching over . . . before operating procedures in the motor vehicle which require a
rapid torque setting.”
The examiner (Answer, page 4), in the statement of the rejection, paraphrases
claim 9 and thereby asserts that Boberg teaches switching before operating procedures of
the motor vehicle which require a rapid torque setting. However, the examiner fails to
direct our attention to any particular passage of Boberg that would suggest this limitation.
Further, in responding to appellants’ arguments (Answer, pages 7-10), the examiner
explains how Boberg discloses a usually specified optimal efficiency operating state and
a dynamically optimal operating state and a means for switching between the two states.
However, we agree with appellants that the examiner never addresses the argument that
Boberg fails to disclose the limitation of switching before operating procedures which
require a rapid torque setting.
Boberg states (column 6, lines 21-26) that “when the vehicle is operated in an
aggressive manner, as represented by the accelerator position APOS exceeding a
predetermined value, the limits imposed on the rate of torque rise are reduced in order to
provide the necessary torque response as required by the accelerator position APOS.”
Thus, Boberg suggests that the switch to a dynamically optimal operating state occurs
when, not before, a rapid torque setting is required. As we find no teaching in Boberg,
and the examiner has pointed to none, that the switching from the optimal efficiency
operating state to the dynamically optimal operating state is before operating procedures
in the motor vehicle require a rapid torque setting, we cannot sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 9 or claims 10, 13, and 14, which depend therefrom, over Boberg.
With regard to Takaoka, again the examiner (Answer, page 5) repeats all of the
words of claim 9, stating that Takaoka teaches the entire claim, without indicating where
Takaoka discloses switching before a rapid torque setting is required. Appellants (Brief,
page 14, and Reply Brief, pages 5, 6, and 8-10) argue that Takaoka fails to disclose
switching before a rapid torque setting is required. In responding to appellants’
arguments (Answer, pages 10-13), the examiner explains how Takaoka discloses a
usually specified optimal efficiency operating state and a dynamically optimal operating
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007