Appeal 2007-2217
Application 11/231,232
Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371, 1382 n.3, 82 USPQ2d 1113, 1121 n.3 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Schierbeek discloses, in pertinent part, a control system for a
headlight8 that is responsive to ambient light levels detected by light sensors
20, 22 (Schierbeek, col. 5, l. 21 - col. 6, l. 39). Detecting a decreased light
level by these sensors can be indicative of a twilight, nighttime, or other low
light condition (Schierbeek, col. 6, ll. 14-18).
Turning again to Schofield, the reference indicates that the ambient
light input 104 can be produced by a headlight control system such as that
shown by Schierbeek (Schofield, col. 11, ll. 9-20). Considering both
references together, an embodiment of Schofield can, in effect, comprise
both (1) a headlight control system responsive to ambient light detected by
sensors 20, 22 (as shown in Schierbeek), and (2) a rearview image display
control system that is likewise responsive to ambient light.
Here again, 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. Even if the ambient light signal 104 used to vary
the luminance level of the display in Schofield was based on ambient light
sensors 20 and 22 in Schierbeek, the “status” of light exterior to the vehicle
(e.g., ambient light or even light generated by the vehicle’s own exterior
lights) would nonetheless be “indicated” by the images captured by at least
one of the image capture devices 14 and 16. That is, in the embodiment
combining the teachings of Schofield and Schierbeek, the control system
8 Schierbeek’s system also controls a variable reflectance mirror element.
This feature, however, is irrelevant to our analysis of the reference with
respect to the claimed invention.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013