Appeal No. 2001-2671 Page 13
Application No. 09/258,155
claimed interaction between the claimed single triggering
element and the sensing of whether the roof is fully open
(i.e., if the roof is sensed as fully open, a closing
operation of the roof is triggered by operation of the single
triggering element, and if the roof is sensed as not fully
open, an opening operation of the roof is triggered by
operation of the single triggering element).
For the reasons set forth above claim 1 is not
anticipated by Weissrich. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1 and claim 3 dependent thereon under
35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is reversed.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We will not sustain either the rejection of claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weissrich or the
rejection of claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Weissrich in view of Baratelli since the
limitations of parent claim 1 not taught by Weissrich (see our
discussion above) have not been asserted by the examiner to
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007