Appeal 2006-2295
Application 10/215,274
switch 2. We fail to see why (and there are no convincing arguments to the
contrary from Appellants) the different door locking and unlocking codes
present in the remote control device of Seubert would not be considered by
the skilled artisan to correspond to “authorization levels” as claimed.
We are further of the view that to whatever extent Appellants intended
to claim the disclosed embodiment (Specification 5) in which authorization
devices having differing levels of authorization are carried by different
categories of individuals such as drivers and passengers, no such recitation is
present in the language of claim 22. It is our opinion that Appellants’
arguments improperly attempt to narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly
adding disclosed limitations which have no basis in the claim. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013