Appeal No. 96-0310
Application 08/084,502
unobvious over the prior art.” Appellants' arguments fail to
satisfy this requirement as a basis to have the claims
considered separately for patentability. Since appellants are
considered to have made no separate arguments for
patentability, all claims will stand or fall together. Note
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). Therefore, we will consider claim 1 as
representative of all the claims on appeal.
At the outset, we note that claim 1 recites an
invention which is much broader than the invention argued by
the examiner and appellants. The brief and the answer
consider the obviousness of turning off a courtesy lamp
indicative of a door ajar condition when the speed of a
vehicle exceeds some predetermined threshold. In our view,
claim 1 is not directed to an invention of this narrow scope.
Claim 1 merely recites controlling the illumination of a lamp
in response to a door ajar signal and a speed signal. The
manner in which the control is effected is not a feature of
claim 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007