The claims
15. Horizont asserted the independent validity of four claims. Although two of them, 4 and 5, include the features of claims 2 (the warning cross is red) and 3 (the position of the cross), nothing turned on those features. I need set out only claims 1, 4, 5 and 6. 1. A mobile warning device for road traffic with a board to be mounted on a vehicle on which strobe lights and warning lights are arranged in a flat pattern and which can be switched on in groups so that they selectively form an illuminated pattern in the form of flashing directional arrows or, alternatively, warning crosses or similar patterns, characterized in that an illuminated warning cross can be optically produced in constant light that differs in colour from the flashing directional arrows. 4.A mobile warning device according to Claim 3, characterized in that an additional spotlight is placed next to each end point of the cross, whereby those four additional spotlights, upon activation of the warning cross that shines in red, emit in pairs a red flashing light, achieved by activating both lamps to the left of the warning cross and both lamps to the right of the warning cross in sequence. 5.A mobile warning device according to Claim 4, characterized in that the additional spotlights allocated to the upper end points of the cross are individually attached to the upper edge of the board, outside the board surface. 6.A mobile warning device according to any one of preceding Claims, characterized in that the warning lights include lights for the emission of both constant light and flashing light configured as LED spotlights with separate LED arrays for permanent light and flashing light respectively.