Appeal No. 2002-0061 Page 4
Application No. 09/253,475
Here, independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"means responsive to a motion detector in the protected area for providing an electronic
signal only while motion occurs in the protected area; and means . . . for activating said
electronic circuit during the simultaneous occurrence of the device being in said
electrically activated condition and said electronic signal being provided to open said
valve. . . ." Similarly, independent claim 10 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "means responsive to a motion detector in the protected vehicle for
providing an electronic signal only while motion occurs in the protected vehicle; and
means . . . for activating said electronic circuit during the simultaneous occurrence of
the device being in said electrically activated condition and said electronic signal being
provided to open said valve. . . ." Giving the independent claims their broadest,
reasonable construction, the limitations require locating a motion detector inside an
area to be protected to generate a triggering signal only in response to motion inside
the area.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007