Appeal No. 2006-2414
Application No. 10/668,514
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 9, 10 and 15 as being
obvious over Sasaki in view Sterler. We agree with the examiner’s observation
that Sasaki does not specifically disclose the features of the last clause of
independent claim 1 on appeal relating to the feature of the noted control circuit
being operable to monitor the operation of a primary warning device and to actuate
a secondary warning device should an indication be received that the primary
warning device has failed.
Sasaki teaches and shows in figure 1 a sensor/monitoring-based system for
an automatic transmission that is controlled by a microprocessor-based control unit
U which, under certain circumstances, indicates a failure of an automatic
transmission based upon a wrong gear and transmission slippage. Among the
teachings in this reference relied upon by the examiner at columns 3 and 4, it is
noted that the top of column 4 indicates that the two warning devices 21 and 22
both operate such as to indicate through warning devices 21 and 22 a warning to
the user of the vehicle in the form of a buzzer and a lamp. It appears that both of
these warning elements are actuated at the same time for both warning devices 21
and 22.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007