Appeal No. 2006-0743 7
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,690
child sitting in the darkness of a locked trunk would be induced to place his/her
hand against the illuminated image of the hand, thereby opening the trunk.
[Emphasis added.]
The examiner concludes (Answer at 4-5):
Since Gager and Marrazzo et al. discloses [sic, disclose] a device used to release
the trunk of the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to incorporate an illuminated actuator as taught by Marrazzo et al. in a system
as disclosed by Gager for providing an [sic, a] release mechanism that is easily
perceived by the child in the enclosed dark trunk.
The appellant does not dispute that it would have been obvious to combine Gager,
Federspiel and Marrazzo. Rather, the appellant argues that the references fail to teach or suggest
a “touch sensitive pad” which generates a signal “upon being touched” as recited in claim 1.
Brief at 4.
According to the appellant’s specification, the disclosed trunk detection and release
system includes “a touch sensitive pad which opens or releases the trunk upon being touched by
an individual who is residing within the trunk.” See col. 2, lines 3-5. In one embodiment, the
illuminated touch sensitive pad is a capacitance detection pad.5 See col. 3, lines 5-8; col. 4,
lines 15-25. However, the “touch sensitive pad” recited in claim 1 is not limited to a capacitance
detection pad. See claim 9 (“said illuminated touch sensitive pad comprises an illuminated
capacitance sensing pad”); Clearstream Wastewater Systems, Inc. v. Hydro-Action, Inc.,
206 F.3d 1440, 1446, 54 USPQ2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (under the doctrine of claim
5 The appellant’s specification indicates that capacitance detection pads were known.
See col. 4, lines 26-28.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007