Appeal No. 2004-1328
Application No. 09/803,360
From our study of the principal brief on appeal, it appears to us that appellant
presents substantially the same arguments with respect to each independent claim
1, 5 and 9 on appeal and separately argues dependent claims 4 and 7, which together
have substantially the same limitation. For our purposes, we have chosen as a
representative independent claim, claim 1 on appeal.
Since all independent claims on appeal have substantially the same limitations,
as to independent claim 1, we point out that the second recited clause recites
“simultaneously or subsequently opening a vehicle door.” The simultaneous or
subsequent opening of the door is not per se recited in the concluding clause, the
clause argued principally in the brief and reply brief. This last clause of representative
claim 1 on appeal recites “completely lowering a window of the vehicle door upon the
occurrence of both the double unlock command and the opening of the vehicle door.”
When properly construed with respect to the second noted clause, this last clause must
be understood to recite “completely lowering a window of the vehicle door upon the
occurrence of both the double unlock command and the simultaneous or subsequent
opening of the vehicle door.” This latter interpretation is consistent with the express
recitations in independent claims 5 and 9 on appeal.
The examiner’s statement of the rejection at pages 3 and 4 of the answer
pertaining to the subject matter of independent claim 5 on appeal recognizes that the
German patent does not teach specifically a double unlock command. The examiner
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007