Appeal 2007-2217
Application 11/231,232
would (1) generate an automatic exterior light control signal responsive to
light sensors 20, 22, and (2) generate an “exterior light status indicator
signal” via image capture devices 14 and 16.9 Therefore, representative
claim 9 is fully met by this embodiment of Schofield as well.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 9 and independent claims 1 and 17 which fall with
claim 9.
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10-15, and 18-21 separately (Br. 18-20), Appellants merely
reiterate the arguments made with respect to the independent claims. These
arguments, however, do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie
case of anticipation for the reasons previously discussed. The Examiner’s
rejection of these claims is therefore sustained.
9 We further note that the term “exterior light status indicator signal” is fully
met by a signal that would merely indicate whether power is being applied to
the lights at all (e.g., a voltage or current signal). Although Schierbeek does
disclose such an exterior light status indicator signal at least via input 68 (see
col. 6, ll. 28-30), that signal is not a function of a portion of at least one
image as claimed. Rather, such a light status indicator signal is based on the
signal from sensors 20, 22.
However, the question of whether it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan at the time of the invention to utilize an ambient light signal in
Schierbeek’s headlight control system that is based on ambient light detected
by image capture devices 14, 16 as suggested by Schofield in lieu of light
sensors 20, 22 in Schierbeek is a question based on an obviousness
determination that is not before us.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013