Appeal No. 2004-1328
Application No. 09/803,360
correctly explains that the reference essentially teaches a single unlock command.
From our study of this reference, the context of the overall disclosure is a setting where
an actual key is used to unlock the doors but recognizes that the prior art also may use
a remote triggering transmitter at a distance from the vehicle for unlocking and control
purposes as discussed at the top of translation page 5. In any event, this double unlock
command is not argued in the brief or reply brief and is admitted to be known in the art
at specification pages 1 and 2 and the Summary of the Invention in the brief at page 2.
It is interesting to note here that the teaching of this admitted prior art is such that a
complete lowering of a door window takes place by a single operation of a double
unlock command alone.
The principal argument in the brief and reply brief of appellant is that the
reference does not lower the vehicle window until a separate and additional action by
the operator occurs after the door is opened. It is further explained at page 4 of the
principal brief on appeal that this separate and additional action requires the user to
actuate the door handle for a specified period of time. This is consistent with the
teachings of the operation of Figure 2 at translation page 10 and as depicted by the
English translation version of the Figure 2 of this reference that was attached to the
brief. Nevertheless, there is no negative limitation in the claims that distinguishes over
the operation and functionality of the reference to the extent of not requiring the door
handle to be actuated for less than one second or any amount of time for that matter.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007