Appeal No. 2006-2414
Application No. 10/668,514
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A vehicle driveline comprising:
at least one of clutch and transmission;
a sensor for determining a undesired condition at said at least one of said
clutch and said transmission, said sensor communicating with a control, said
control communicating with a primary warning device to pride a warning to an
operator of a vehicle of said undesired condition; and
said control being operable to monitor the operation of said primary warning
device and actuate a secondary warning device should an indication be received
that said primary warning device has failed.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Ivey et al. (Ivey) 4,131,036 Dec. 26, 1978
Lang et al. (Lang) 4,488,140 Dec. 11, 1984
Sterler et al. (Sterler) 4,788,446 Nov. 29, 1988
Hallenstvedt et al. (Hallenstvedt) 5,992,599 Nov. 30, 1999
Steinel et al. (Steinel) 6,033,342 Mar. 7, 2000
Gould et al. (Gould) 6,065,138 May 16, 2000
Sasaki et al. (Sasaki) 6,125,316 Sep. 26, 2000
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As to claims 1
through 4, 9, 10 and 15, the examiner relies upon Sasaki in view of Sterler, further
in view of Hallenstvedt as to claims 5 through 7, and still further in view of Ivey as
to claim 8. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Sasaki in view of Sterler, further in view of Steinel. The examiner has rejected
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007