Appeal No. 2000-1743
Application No. 09/314,618
obviousness-type double patenting that a terminal disclaimer
will be filed to obviate these rejections upon final
disposition of the instant appeal. Given that no such
terminal disclaimer has as of yet been filed by appellant and
no argument made with respect to these grounds of rejection,
and the fact that appellant has indicated that he "does not
contest the obviousness-type double patenting rejections
raised against claims 1-8 in the final action," we summarily
sustain the examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 8 based
on obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 6
and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on the Bouda patent, we
note that claim 1 on appeal sets forth a method for modifying
hydraulic circuitry of an automotive transmission comprising
the step of
providing a fluid flow path from said manual valve
to a predetermined end of said "1 - 2" shift valve
for applying a fluid pressure to said predetermined
end of said "1 - 2" shift valve sufficient to
maintain said "1 - 2" shift valve in a downshifted
position whenever said gear selector is in a first
gear position without regard to the actual speed of
a vehicle in which said transmission is installed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007