Appeal 2007-2217 Application 11/231,232 to ambient light levels as disclosed in Schierbeek, the disclosure of which is incorporated in Schofield (Schofield, col. 11, ll. 9-20).7 With this brief discussion of Schofield in mind, we turn to the specific language of representative claim 9. At the outset, we note the extensive scope and breadth of a key term in the claim: “exterior light.” Although Appellants’ representative indicated at the oral hearing that the term was intended to recite lights exterior to the body of the vehicle (e.g., headlights, taillights, fog lights, etc.), we find the term to be not so limited. Significantly, neither the term “exterior light” itself nor its usage in context in the claim reasonably indicates in what respect to which the light is exterior (i.e., with respect to the vehicle body, dashboard, etc.). Furthermore, the term “exterior light” appears twice in representative claim 9: (1) with respect to a “vehicle exterior light control” in the preamble, and (2) with respect to “an exterior light status indicator signal” in the body of the claim. Significantly, nothing in the claim requires that the “exterior light” that is controlled be the same as the “exterior light” whose status is indicated via the status indicator signal. Simply put, the scope and breadth of the recited “exterior light status indicator signal” does not preclude a signal that indicates the status of ambient light exterior to the vehicle. Leaving aside for the moment the incorporated Schierbeek disclosure, we find Schofield amply discloses all limitations of representative claim 9. First, the display 20 reasonably constitutes an “exterior light” at least with respect to the vehicle’s dashboard and other internal components. As 7 Schofield incorporates the disclosure of Schierbeek’s Application No. 08/277,674 which is a parent application to the application that ultimately issued as U.S. Pat. 5,715,093 (Schierbeek) cited by the Examiner. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013