Appeal No. 2004-0623
Application 09/293,923
should be interpreted as being limited to a switch operated by a person, was not
disclosed in the application as filed, and therefore this claim runs afoul of 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph. The appellant responds by urging that one of ordinary skill in the
art would understand from the statement on page 7 of the specification that the switch
for disengaging the brake is “pushed,” that it is manually actuated by the operator of the
vehicle, and is not by other means, such as automatically by another device. We do not
agree with this interpretation of the specification.
While it is true that the disclosure establishes that the brake switch is not to be
released prior to disengagement of the electronic engine immobilizer, the extent of the
explanation in the specification is merely that such is accomplished by the switch being
“pushed,” which in our view instructs one of ordinary skill in this art only that some
means must be provided to “push” the switch at the appropriate time, and not that the
“push” must be accomplished by a person. For example, from our perspective, the
explanation of this aspect of the invention provided in the appellant’s disclosure is broad
enough to encompass pushing the switch by means of a solenoid device automatically
triggered by the disengagement of the engine immobilizer.
Thus, we are not persuaded by the appellant’s arguments that this rejection is
improper, and we will sustain it.
The Rejection Under Section 102(b)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007