Appeal No. 2006-0945
Application No. 10/245,888
correction table data map provided for each gear position from the vehicle V
and the transmission hydraulic oil temperature C, and the driving duty
correction amount α % corresponding with this capacity correction value is
calculated. Subsequently, at the step 46, Dc % corresponding with the
coasting drive lock-up clutch application capacity obtained at the step 33 is
added to the correction amount α % to calculate the lock-up solenoid driving
duty D, and the lock-up clutch application capacity control based on D=Dc+
α is carried out [emphasis added; See Narita col. 10, l. 31-46].
and
When ΔNmax is larger than the slip amount predetermined value β, namely, when
the slip of the torque converter occurs at the time of lock-up clutch application
capacity control during the coasting drive, the lock-up clutch application capacity
correction value for the coasting drive provided at an address determined by V (L)
and C (L) of the corresponding correction table data for use in retrieval at the step
45 is increased by a fixed amount so that no slip occurs at the step 59
corresponding to the coasting drive lock-up capacity command value varying
means. When ΔNmin is smaller than the slip amount predetermined value γ,
the coasting drive lock-up clutch application capacity correction value
provided at a suitable address of the corresponding correction table used for
retrieval at the step 45 is decreased by a fixed amount at the step 60. It is thus
possible to avoid the failure of the achievement of the above-described effects
which is caused when the coasting drive lock-up clutch application capacity
unnecessarily becomes excessive. According to the above-mentioned learning
control, the coasting drive lock-up clutch application capacity corresponding with
the driving duty D obtained at the step 46 shown in FIG. 6 is constantly corrected
to be a minimum lock-up clutch application capacity within such a range that no
slip of the torque converter 3 occurs irrespective of a difference in individual
vehicles and a variation in driving conditions, so that the effects of the first
embodiment can be securely achieved [emphasis added; See Narita col. 11, l. 27-
53].
We note that all of the argued limitations are contained in these Narita portions and that
the examiner’s determination of obviousness [see Answer at p. 6] is agreed with, and therefore
the rejection is sustained.
Accordingly, the decision to reject claim 2 as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Narita is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007