Ex Parte Stam et al - Page 6

                 Appeal 2007-2217                                                                                        
                 Application 11/231,232                                                                                  
                                                                                                                        
                 to ambient light levels as disclosed in Schierbeek, the disclosure of which is                          
                 incorporated in Schofield (Schofield, col. 11, ll. 9-20).7                                              
                        With this brief discussion of Schofield in mind, we turn to the specific                         
                 language of representative claim 9.  At the outset, we note the extensive                               
                 scope and breadth of a key term in the claim: “exterior light.”  Although                               
                 Appellants’ representative indicated at the oral hearing that the term was                              
                 intended to recite lights exterior to the body of the vehicle (e.g., headlights,                        
                 taillights, fog lights, etc.), we find the term to be not so limited.                                   
                 Significantly, neither the term “exterior light” itself nor its usage in context                        
                 in the claim reasonably indicates in what respect to which the light is                                 
                 exterior (i.e., with respect to the vehicle body, dashboard, etc.).                                     
                        Furthermore, the term “exterior light” appears twice in representative                           
                 claim 9: (1) with respect to a “vehicle exterior light control” in the preamble,                        
                 and (2) with respect to “an exterior light status indicator signal” in the body                         
                 of the claim.  Significantly, nothing in the claim requires that the “exterior                          
                 light” that is controlled be the same as the “exterior light” whose status is                           
                 indicated via the status indicator signal.  Simply put, the scope and breadth                           
                 of the recited “exterior light status indicator signal” does not preclude a                             
                 signal that indicates the status of ambient light exterior to the vehicle.                              
                        Leaving aside for the moment the incorporated Schierbeek disclosure,                             
                 we find Schofield amply discloses all limitations of representative claim 9.                            
                 First, the display 20 reasonably constitutes an “exterior light” at least with                          
                 respect to the vehicle’s dashboard and other internal components.  As                                   
                                                                                                                        
                 7 Schofield incorporates the disclosure of Schierbeek’s Application No.                                 
                 08/277,674 which is a parent application to the application that ultimately                             
                 issued as U.S. Pat. 5,715,093 (Schierbeek) cited by the Examiner.                                       
                                                           6                                                             

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013