Appeal No. 1997-0202
Application No. 08/247,709
. . . a controller connected to said
sensor, said brakes, and said ignition,
for causing said light to flash only
in the event one of:
In our view, a proper interpretation of the claim construction
would require only one of the conditions to be satisfied for the
claim limitations to be met by the prior art. While we
previously expressed doubts as to merits of the Examiner’s
interpretation of Ehrlich to include operation at predetermined
threshold levels, it is abundantly clear that at least the first
recited condition in sub-paragraph (i) of claim 39 is satisfied
by Ehrlich. The warning light system described by Ehrlich would
flash when the ignition is on, the brakes are applied, and
deceleration exceeds a predetermined level, i.e., all that is
required by the sub-paragraph (i) recitation.
As to the remaining limitations appearing in sub-paragraphs
a) and b) of claim 39, the Examiner has set forth an analysis
(Answer, pages 4 and 5) of how Ehrlich would be modified to
arrive at the claimed invention. In our view, this analysis is
sufficiently reasonable to satisfy the Examiner’s burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. After reviewing
Appellants’ arguments in response, we find that this prima facie
case of obviousness has not been rebutted by any persuasive
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007