Appeal Number: 2006-0448
Application Number: 10/432,753
state and a means for switching between the two states. However, again the examiner
fails to address the limitation of switching before operating procedures which require a
rapid torque setting.
Takaoka states (column 2, lines 38-42) that “[t]he drive controller is operable, in
response to the command from the command generating unit, to control driving of the
electric motor with the driving characteristic that exceeds the rated value for a limited
period of time.” Takaoka further states (column 5, lines 26-35) that the electronic control
unit 60 receives signals via the input port such as an accelerator position AP and “an
ON/OFF signal received from a dash switch 76 for generating a command to produce
high torque only for a short period of time.” However, we find no suggestion, and the
examiner has pointed to none, that a switching to a dynamically optimal operating state
occurs before operating procedures which require a rapid torque setting. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 9 or the claims which depend therefrom,
claims 10 through 12, 15 through 17, 19, 20, and 23 through 25, over Takaoka.
The examiner adds Henneken to the Takaoka to reject claim 18. As claim 18
includes all of the limitations of claim 9 and Henneken fails to cure the deficiencies of
Takaoka regarding those limitations, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claim
18 over Takaoka in view of Henneken.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007