Appeal No. 2006-1295
Application 10/427,072
The examiner argues:
At the time of the invention, it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in this art to
change the color of the indicators disclosed in Suzuki
et al. to different colors based on the particular
operating state of the cruise control system as taught
by Abel et al. The motivation for doing so would have
been, in the case of a variable-color display, cruise
control marks (indicators) can be easily represented so
that the driver better perceives the change in the
operating state. [answer, page 4]
***
A person of ordinary skill in this art would have
the requisite skill and knowledge to modify the cruise
control indicators (131,132) disclosed in Suzuki et al.
to have different colors for the various operating
states of the cruise control system based on the
generally [sic] teaching disclosed in Abel et al. that
changes the color of instrument cluster indicator as a
way to better alert the driver of a change in the
operating state of the vehicle. [answer, page 7]
The operating state referred to by Abel is the speed
relative to the authorized maximum speed. The examiner’s
extension of Abel’s teaching to the on/set condition of a cruise
control is based upon impermissible hindsight in view of the
appellant’s disclosure. See W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393,
396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, we reverse the
examiner’s rejections.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007