Ex Parte 6130614 et al - Page 8




               Appeal No. 2006-0743                                                                             8                
               Reexamination Control No. 90/006,690                                                                              

               differentiation, it is presumed that different words used in different claims result in a difference              
               in meaning and scope for each of the claims; it prevents the narrowing of broad claims by                         
               reading into them the limitations of narrower claims).                                                            
                      The appellant attempts to draw a distinction between the claimed “touch sensitive pad”                     
               and the activation device disclosed in Marrazzo, arguing that the claimed “touch sensitive pad”                   
               requires less effort to operate than the activation device disclosed in Marrazzo.  Brief at 5-6.  The             
               appellant’s argument is not persuasive.  Claim 1 does not limit the amount of effort required to                  
               operate the “touch sensitive pad.”  Claim 1 merely requires that a signal be generated when the                   
               touch sensitive pad is “touched.”  As explained above, Marrazzo discloses that the activation                     
               device is coupled to the circuitry of an electric solenoid within the trunk latch mechanism.                      
               When the activation device is contacted, the trunk latch solenoid is activated and the trunk of the               
               automobile opens.  Marrazzo expressly discloses that the activation device operates by the                        
               “touch” of a hand.  See col. 3, lines 9-22.  Based on the teachings in Marrazzo, there appears to                 
               be no difference between the claimed “touch sensitive pad” and the activation device disclosed                    
               in Marrazzo.6                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                
                      6  Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is some structural difference                         
               between the claimed “touch sensitive pad” and the activation device disclosed in Marrazzo, it                     
               still would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the internal latch                    
               release in the system of Gager with the claimed “touch sensitive pad.”  Marrazzo recognizes that                  
               a trunk activation device must be readily operated by a small child.  See col. 1, lines 58-62.  One               
               of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the easier a trunk activation device is to                
               operate the more readily it will be operated by a small child.  As explained in the appellant’s                   
               specification, touch sensitive pads which sense the capacitance of the human body were known.                     
               See col. 4, lines 15-31.  One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that touch                       
               sensitive pads of this type are extremely easy to operate.  Therefore, based on the teachings in                  
               Marrazzo, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the internal latch                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007