Appeal 2007-2217
Application 11/231,232
claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of
performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding representative claim 9,5 the Examiner has indicated how
the claimed invention is deemed to be fully met by the disclosure of
Schofield -- a reference that incorporates the disclosure of Scheierbeek by
reference.6 According to the Examiner, Schofield discloses a display whose
illumination level is controlled responsive to the ambient light level around
the vehicle. The Examiner further notes that Schierbeek detects light around
the vehicle via sensors 20, 22 that indicates a twilight or nighttime condition
(Answer 4-10, 13-16).
Appellants argue that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a status
indicator, let alone a controller configured to generate a status indicator
signal as a function of at least a portion of at least one image as claimed.
Appellants contend that Schofield’s display is not an exterior light status
indicator, but merely depicts a merged image of a scene rearward of a
vehicle derived from a series of rearward facing cameras (Br. 17; Reply Br.
5 Although Appellants nominally argue each independent claim separately
(Br. 16-18), the arguments are essentially directed to the prior art’s alleged
failure to teach or suggest an exterior light status indicator signal as a
function of at least a portion of the image as claimed -- a feature common to
all independent claims. See Br. 16-18; see also Reply Br. 2. Accordingly,
we select the broadest independent claim -- claim 9 -- as representative. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
6 See n.7, infra, of this opinion.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013