Appeal No. 2002-0543 Page 6
Application No. 09/118,629
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a] switch
assembly for a vehicle comprising . . . a proximity sensor for actuating said light in
response to detecting an object in proximity to said switch. . . ." According to the
limitations, detecting the proximity of an object is a prerequisite for illumination.
Because the independent claim uses the transitional term "comprising," however, it
does not exclude additional prerequisites.
2. Obviousness Determination
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. The question of obviousness is
"based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, we find that Takabe teaches that detecting the proximity of an object is a
prerequisite for illumination. Specifically, "the switch lighting system of the vehicle . . .
turn[s] on the pilot lamp which illuminates a switch, when the preperception detection of
the operation of the switch . . . is carried out in advance with a proximity sensor."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007