Ex Parte Haaf et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 14, 2004

09589016 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JURGEN HAAF and DIETER TRUMPFHELLER
____________
Appeal No. 2003-1827
Application No. 09/589,016
____________
HEARD: DECEMBER 10, 2003
____________
Before ABRAMS, FRANKFORT and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 2-6,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2003-1827
Application No. 09/589,016
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a device for opening a lid of a trunk of a
motor vehicle, wherein an actuating element mounted in the trunk emits a beam to
actuate a closing system operable to lock and unlock the lid. Further understanding of
the invention can be obtained from a reading of representative claim 6, which is
reproduced in the opinion section of this decision.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Jahrsetz et al. (Jahrsetz) 5,736,793 Apr. 7, 1998
Gager et al. (Gager) 6,222,442 Apr. 24, 2001
The following is the sole rejection before us for review.
Claims 2-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Gager in view of Jahrsetz.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 23) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
the brief (Paper No. 22) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Appeal No. 2003-1827
Application No. 09/589,016
Page 3
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons
which follow, we cannot sustain the rejection.
Claim 6, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as follows:
6. A device for opening a lid of a trunk of a motor vehicle
comprising:
an actuating element operatively arranged in the trunk
and capable of emitting a beam when actuated, and
a remotely operable closing system operatively
arranged on the motor vehicle and operable to lock and
unlock the lid, the remotely operable closing system being
capable of receiving a beam corresponding to the beam
emitted from the actuating element and unlocking the lid,
wherein, when the actuating element is actuated, the
beam is emitted therefrom and received by the remotely
operable closing system which unlocks the lid.
Gager discloses a vehicle trunk emergency release and warning system having a
presence detector 40 located in the trunk of the vehicle for sensing the presence of a
person in the trunk and an internal manual latch release 70 for the trunk lid. When the
presence detector detects a person in the trunk compartment, it may actuate an alarm
to alert the driver of that fact, cause the latch release 70 to be illuminated or
automatically activate the trunk compartment lid release 90. As recognized by the
examiner, Gager differs from the invention recited in claim 6 in that it lacks an actuating
element operatively arranged in the trunk and capable of emitting a beam when
actuated. While either the presence detector 40 or the latch release 70 may actuate a
lid release, neither is disclosed as being capable of emitting a beam.
Appeal No. 2003-1827
Application No. 09/589,016
Page 4
Jahrsetz discloses a control system comprising a plurality of actuators 7, such as
switches or buttons, located within the vehicle for actuating electrically-operated
components such as window and door locks, a theft alarm and, where appropriate, a
trunk lock 13. These actuators 7 are electrically connected to the components through
a control unit 2. Alternatively or in addition to the hard-wired actuators 7, a remote
actuating device can be provided in the form of a remote transmitter 8 which can
activate a receiver 9 connected to the control unit 2. The control system can comprise
a transponder interrogation transceiver 14 which is accessible and can be effective from
outside the vehicle and can be mechanically actuated by means of a transponder 15.
The vehicle locks 4 and trunk closure 13 are opened by electric motors.
In rejecting the claims, the examiner has taken the position that it would have
been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Gager and Jahrsetz to provide a
trunk escape actuator in the trunk, as taught by Gager, with a remote closing system as
taught by Jahrsetz in order to retrofit the trunk release system of Gager in a vehicle
having a remote keyless entry system (answer, pages 4-5).
We find no suggestion in the combined teachings of the applied references to
provide a beam-emitting type of actuating element operatively arranged in the trunk as
called for in claim 6. Neither Gager nor Jahrsetz teaches or suggests provision of this
type of actuating element in the trunk. The only beam-emitting actuator disclosed in
either reference is the remote transmitter 8 (transceiver 14) which is effective from
Appeal No. 2003-1827
Application No. 09/589,016
Page 5
outside the vehicle. All other actuators 7 taught by Jahrsetz, including the actuator for
the trunk closure, appear to be hard-wired electrically to the central control unit 2 rather
than being wireless actuators which emit a beam.
While Jahrsetz evidences that wireless beam-emitting actuators were generally
known in the motor vehicle art at the time of appellants’ invention, neither Gager nor
Jahrsetz provides any suggestion for locating such an actuator in the trunk of the
vehicle in place of the hard-wired electrical actuators (buttons or switches 7 of Jahrsetz)
and the manual release latch 70 of Gager. The examiner cites as motivation easy
retrofitting of Gager’s trunk release device in a vehicle with a remote keyless entry
system. Jahrsetz, the only remote keyless entry system cited by the examiner,
however, utilizes component controls, such as trunk release controls which are
actuated by hard-wired switches or buttons located inside the vehicle, with the only
remote transceiver element being disclosed as accessible and effective outside the
vehicle, not inside the vehicle or trunk compartment. Thus, the applied prior art
provides no suggestion to locate a beam-emitting actuator in the trunk.
In light of the above, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 6 or claims 2-5 which depend from claim 6.
Appeal No. 2003-1827
Application No. 09/589,016
Page 6
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2003-1827
Application No. 09/589,016
Page 7
Crowell & Moring LLP
Intellectual Property Group
P. O. Box 14300
Washington, DC 20044-4300