Appeal No. 96-0310
Application 08/084,502
Therefore, much of what appellants and the examiner
argue is not material to the invention as recited in claim 1.
We would agree with many of the points made by appellants if
claim 1 were, in fact, directed to the invention which they
argue. As noted above, however, claim 1 is not so directed.
Accordingly, all of appellants’ arguments directed to whether
the prior art teaches extinguishing a dome light in response
to a speed threshold are not commensurate in scope with the
invention of claim 1.
Having made these initial observations, we direct our
attention to the specific language of claim 1. Claim 1
recites generating a door ajar signal, generating a speed
signal, and controlling a lamp in response to these signals.
In our view, the recitations of claim 1 are broad enough to be
met by a control system which controls a lamp in response to
the presence of either or both of these signals because the
claim does not specify any relationship between the signals
and the subsequent control function.
Although the combination of Holst and Mullin suffers
many of the deficiencies argued by appellants, we are of the
view that the invention of claim 1 is basically suggested by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007