Appeal No. 2006-2414
Application No. 10/668,514
well as to minimize the damage to the transmission/engine of the vehicle. The
teachings suggest that this engine cut off is in response to a fault or warning
operation.
We therefore find unpersuasive appellants’ argument at page 5 of the
principal brief that the types of faults that are detected in Sasaki are quite distinct
for those if Hallenstvedt. The issue is more focused upon the nature of the type of
responses to existing faults rather then upon the nature of the types of faults
themselves. The other remarks by appellants at page 5 of the principal brief are
based upon speculation and not upon an artisan’s perspective of the combined
teachings and suggestions of the references relied upon to reject claim 5.
Next, we turn to the rejection of dependent claim 8, which further adds the
teachings of Ivey. As noted earlier, appellants’ remarks at pages 5 and 6 of the
principal brief do not directly argue the features of claim 8, which recites the use of
a braking system to be actuated to provide a form of a secondary warning device.
Since Ivey operates in the same context, as noted earlier with respect to the other
applied prior art in an automatic transmission environment, therefore, the
examiner’s reliance upon the teachings at column 8 is persuasive of
unpatentability.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007