Appeal No. 2006-1482
Application No. 10/619,890
the electronic circuitry comprises a continuity check module.
Appellants’ position (answer, page 10) is that Adams does not
inherently disclose the continuity check module, as asserted by
the examiner. The examiner responds (answer, page 16) that
although Adams does not specifically disclose a continuity check
module, Adams must be disclosing a continuity check module within
the diagnostic means because if current does not go through the
bridgewire, then the continuity must be bad. The examiner
additionally argues (answer, page 17) to the effect that it is
well known in the art to use current to verify continuity and
(answer, page 16) that Adams does disclose a diagnostic current.
From our review of Adams, we find that the reference
discloses (col. 4, lines 14-16) that “another resistor 60 sets
up a diagnostic current for a controller 59, which is located
on the opposite side of the circuit board." Adams additionally
discloses (col. 5, lines 24-32) that “the controller has
diagnostic means for comparing igniter controller integrity data,
energy storage capacity data, and firing loop (heating means
activation circuitry) integrity data to predetermined limits and
generating fault warning messages and integrity status messages
to the ECU.” From the disclosure of what items the diagnostic
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007