Appeal 2007-1478
Application 10/359,861
unpatentability, we will assume for the purpose of the appeal that the display
of Rice is not a license plate. Accordingly, with respect to claim 2, we find
that Rice does not explicitly teach the license plate as claimed. Therefore,
we reverse the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites an assembly separate from a frame surrounding the
license plate. The claim recites that “the first lighting element’s field of
illumination focusing on the license plate.” While this limitation is awkward
because there is a recitation of a first lighting element without a recitation of
a second lighting element, we construe the limitation as “ a first lighting
element’s” Claim 3 further recites “causing an indirect reflective effect
upon individuals and mechanical devices viewing the front license plate.”
This limitation of claim 3 is also awkward; however, we construe this
limitation as “causing light to be reflected from the license plate toward
individuals and machines viewing the front license plate.” Thus, we
construe claim 3 as directed to an assembly that is separate from a license
plate frame and when the front license plate is viewed, the light from the
illumination source is reflected to the viewer (i.e., the plate is illuminated by
reflecting light off of the plate and not by transmission of light though the
plate).
As discussed above with respect to claim 2 we do not find that Rice
teaches illuminating a license plate. Further, Rice’s display includes
transparent and opaque portions, with the light being transmitted through the
transparent portions (i.e. the display is illuminated from behind). Fact 3.
Thus, in Rice the display is illuminated by transmittance and not reflectance.
Accordingly, with respect to claim 3, we agree with Appellant on the first
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013