Appeal No. 2001-2671 Page 11
Application No. 09/258,155
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claim 1 reads as follows:
Process for controlling movement of a vehicle roof
that is to be moved by power in opening and closing
operating directions, comprising the steps of moving a
single triggering element, for both the opening and
closing operating directions, and selecting the opening
or closing directions with the single triggering element
as a function of a position of the roof, the operating
directions being determined by sensing whether the roof
is fully open, whereby; if the roof is fully open, a
closing operation of the roof is triggered, and if the
roof is not fully open, an opening operation of the roof
is triggered.
Weissrich discloses a motor vehicle roof which can be
opened by a motor through various interim stages by operation
of a rotary switch about which graphic symbols are arranged
which indicate the respective opening stages. The control is
suited for triggering complex, openable motor vehicle roofs
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007