Ex parte PARADA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 25, 1997

08183571 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 25, 1997)

Application for patent filed January 19, 1994. According1
to the appellant, the application is a continuation of
Application No. 07/912,815, filed July 13, 1992, now abandoned.
Claims 3, 8 and 21 have been amended subsequent to the2
final rejection.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 44
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte NIKOLAY PARADA
____________
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,5711
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, LYDDANE, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 to 8, 10 to 15, 20 to 33, 35, 37, 38 and 40
to 44, which are all of the claims pending in this application.2
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter new rejections pursuant to
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
2
37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
In determining the teachings of Niemeyer, we will rely on3
the translation provided by Schreiber Translations, Inc. A copy
of the translation is attached for the appellant's convenience.
3
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a steering wheel.
Claims 4 and 6 are representative of the subject matter on appeal
and a copy of those claims, as they appear in the appendix to the
appellant's brief, is attached to this decision.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Scheibert 1,103,438 July 14, 1914
Ahrens 2,863,015 Dec. 2, 1958
Kato et al. (Kato) 4,374,310 Feb. 15, 1983
Rose 218,330 (UK) Aug. 20, 1925
Niemeyer 2,936,350 (Germany) Mar. 26, 19813
Claims 1, 2, 5, 12 to 15, 21 to 29 and 37 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as the specification, as
originally filed, does not provide support for the invention as
is now claimed.
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
4
Claims 1 to 8, 10 to 15, 20 to 33, 35, 37, 38 and 40 to 44
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which the appellant regards as the
invention.
Claims 1 to 3, 6, 8, 10 to 15, 20, 38 and 40 to 44 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kato.
Claims 1 to 8, 10 to 12, 20, 21, 23, 25 to 33, 35, 37, 38,
43 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Niemeyer.
Claims 1, 2, 5 to 7, 20 to 33, 37 and 38 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Rose.
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
5
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 20 to 33, 35, 37 and 38 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Scheibert.
Claims 1 to 4, 6, 8, 10 to 15, 20 to 32, 35, 38 and 40 to 44
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by,
or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ahrens.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the rejections set forth
above, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 17,
mailed November 25, 1994) and the examiner's answer (Paper No.
33, mailed July 10, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper
No. 30, filed August 8, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 36,
filed September 9, 1996) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
6
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
7
The description issue
The rejection of claims 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is sustained, but not the rejection of claims 1,
2, 5, 12 to 15, 21, 23, 25 to 29 and 37.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventor had possession at that time of the later
claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of
literal support in the specification for the claim language.
Further, the content of the drawings may also be considered in
determining compliance with the written description requirement.
See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111,
1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 USPQ
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The following items were determined by the examiner as not
being supported by the originally filed disclosure: (1)"said
recesses have various predetermined shapes identifying
corresponding control means" as recited in claim 22; (2) "each
said at least one open at one side recess contains more than one
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
8
of said control pads" as recited in claim 1; and (3) "said
control pads do not project beyond said gripping surface" as
recited in claims 1 and 23.
The appellant's argument (brief, pp. 23-25) regarding item
(1) is not convincing. The appellant is correct that the
original specification (p. 4) states that the cavities 30 may be
of any conventional shape: rectangular, round, oval, etc. and
that those various shapes are shown in the drawings. However,
our review of the originally filed disclosure fails to find any
support for the predetermined shapes identifying corresponding
control means. That is, the originally filed disclosure would
not have reasonably conveyed to an artisan that the shape of the
recess identified the device being controlled by the control pad.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 22, and its
dependent claim 24, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
For the reasons set forth in the appellant's brief (pp. 10-
23), it is our opinion that items (2) and (3) above are supported
by the originally filed disclosure. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 12 to 15, 21, 23, 25 to
29 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
9
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
10
The indefiniteness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 8, 10 to 15,
20 to 33, 35, 37, 38 and 40 to 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes
and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
Initially, we note that claims 3, 8 and 21 have been amended
subsequent to the final rejection to delete the language which
the examiner found to be objectionable.
As to the language still at issue (final rejection, pp.6-7),
it is our opinion that the language at issue can be understood
when read in light of the disclosure for the reasons set forth by
the appellant (brief, pp. 37-52). With regard to claim 35, it is
our opinion that the phrase "at least one positioned internally
relative said gripping member connecting member connecting said
gripping member with a steering column" would be interpreted by
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
11
an artisan to be "at least one connecting member positioned
internally relative said gripping member connecting said gripping
member with a steering column." Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1 to 8, 10 to 15, 20 to 33, 35, 37, 38
and 40 to 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The anticipation issue
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Kato
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 6, 8, 10
to 15, 20, 38 and 40 to 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kato.
Kato does not disclose a plurality of control pads
positioned in a separate "open at one side recess" as set forth
in independent claims 1, 3 and 6 and dependent claim 43.
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
12
Additionally, Kato does not disclose the control pads positioned
on the gripping member of circular shape as set forth in
independent claims 1 and 6.
For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6 and
43, as well as their dependent claims 2, 8, 10 to 15, 20, 38, 40
to 42 and 44, as being anticipated by Kato is not sustained.
Niemeyer
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 8, 10 to 12,
20, 21, 23, 25 to 33, 35, 37, 38, 43 and 44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Niemeyer.
Niemeyer does not disclose a plurality of control pads
positioned in a separate "open at one side recess" as set forth
in independent claims 1, 3, 6, 23 and 35. Additionally, Niemeyer
does not disclose (1) the control pads positioned on the gripping
member of circular shape as set forth in independent claims 1, 6
and 23, (2) the control pads positioned on the hub member of
generally circular shape as set forth in independent claim 3, and
(3) the devices being controlled being selected from a group
consisting of a radio, air conditioning, heater, defroster,
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
13
window controls and windshield wipers as set forth in independent
claims 4, 6, 23 and 35.
For the above reasons, the rejection of independent claims
1, 3, 4, 6, 23 and 35, as well as their dependent claims 2, 5, 7,
8, 10 to 12, 20, 21, 25 to 33, 37, 38, 43 and 44, as being
anticipated by Niemeyer is not sustained.
Rose
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 to 7, 20
to 33, 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Rose.
Rose does not disclose a plurality of control pads
positioned in a separate "open at one side recess" as set forth
in independent claims 1, 6 and 23. Additionally, Rose does not
disclose that the devices being controlled being selected from a
group consisting of a radio, air conditioning, heater, defroster,
window controls and windshield wipers as set forth in independent
claims 6 and 23.
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
14
For the above reasons, the rejection of independent claims
1, 6 and 23, as well as their dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 20 to 22,
24 to 33, 37 and 38 as being anticipated by Rose is not
sustained.
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
15
Scheibert
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 20 to
33, 35, 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Scheibert.
Scheibert does not disclose a plurality of control pads
positioned in a separate "open at one side recess" as set forth
in independent claims 1, 6, 23 and 35. Additionally, Scheibert
does not disclose (1) the control means positioned on the
connecting member as set forth in independent claim 35, (2) the
control pads which do not project beyond the gripping surface as
set forth in independent claims 1 and 23, and (3) the devices
being controlled being selected from a group consisting of a
radio, air conditioning, heater, defroster, window controls and
windshield wipers as set forth in independent claims 6, 23 and
35.
For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 6, 23 and
35, as well as their dependent claims 2, 7, 20 to 22, 24 to 33,
37 and 38, as being anticipated by Scheibert is not sustained.
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
16
Ahrens
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 6, 8, 10
to 15, 20 to 32, 35, 38 and 40 to 44 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ahrens.
Ahrens does not disclose a plurality of control pads
positioned in a separate "open at one side recess" as set forth
in independent claims 1, 3, 6, 23 and 35. Additionally, Ahrens
does not disclose (1) the gripping member being of circular shape
as set forth in independent claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 23 and 35, (2) the
control pads positioned on the gripping member as set forth in
independent claims 1, 6 and 23, (3) the control means positioned
on the hub member of generally circular shape as set forth in
independent claim 35, and (4) the control pads which do not
project beyond the gripping surface as set forth in independent
claims 1 and 23.
For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6,
23 and 35, as well as their dependent claims 2, 8, 10 to 15, 20
to 22, 24 to 32, 38 and 40 to 44 as being anticipated by Ahrens
is not sustained.
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
17
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
18
The obviousness issue
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie
case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence that
the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of
ordinary skill in the relevant art to make the modifications
necessary to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In
re Lintner, 9 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Rejections based on § 103 must rest on a factual basis with these
facts being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the
invention from the prior art. The examiner may not, because of
doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation,
unfounded assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection. See In re
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
19
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert.
denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
We will not sustain any of the examiner's rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 since the examiner has not established a factual
basis as to why the differences between the claimed subject
matter, as set forth previously with respect to the anticipation
issue, and the individually applied prior art (i.e., Kato,
Niemeyer, Rose, Scheibert or Ahrens) would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellant's
invention.
The only difference in the independent claims that the
examiner found to have been obvious was providing a plurality of
control pads positioned in a separate "open at one side recess."
The evidence the examiner first used in the final rejection to
suggest the modification of the applied prior art was that
it is common knowledge in the art to form a recess with more
than one control pad for the convenience of the driver to
control different devices simultaneously.
However, the appellant seasonably challenged this statement in
the brief. Thus, the burden to supply evidence to support this
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2144.03.4
20
statement shifted to the examiner and the examiner has not4
supplied any such evidence. Consequently, there is no factual
basis to establish that it would have been obvious to have
provided a plurality of control pads positioned in a separate
"open at one side recess" as recited in claims 1, 3, 6, 23, 35
and 43.
New grounds of rejection
In accordance with 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we introduce the
following new grounds of rejection.
Written description
Claims 3, 8, 10, 11, 20, 35, 38, and 40 to 44 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as the specification, as
originally filed, does not provide support for the invention as
is now claimed, for the reasons set forth below.
As set forth previously, "said recesses have various
predetermined shapes identifying corresponding control means"
recited in claim 22 is not supported by the originally filed
disclosure. This same limitation is recited in claim 20.
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
21
Therefore, claim 20 and claim 38 dependent thereon are not
supported by the originally filed disclosure.
Additionally, we have determined from our review of the
appealed claims and the originally filed disclosure that the
following items are not supported by the originally filed
disclosure: (1) "said control means includes a plurality of
control pads positioned . . . in at least one open at one side
recess" wherein the control means is positioned on the hub member
as recited in claim 3; (2) "said control means include a
plurality of control pads positioned . . . in at least one open
at one side recess" wherein the control means is positioned on
the connecting member as recited in claim 35; and (3) "said
control pads are positioned in at least one open at one side
recess" wherein the control pads are positioned on the spoke
member as recited in claim 43. Therefore, claims 3, 35 and 43
and claims 8, 10, 11, 20, 38, 40 to 42 and 44 dependent thereon
are not supported by the originally filed disclosure.
Indefiniteness
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
The appellant's attention is directed to claim 23 wherein5
this double inclusion was avoided.
22
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant
regards as the invention, for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 35 recites a transportation device comprising, inter
alia, a steering wheel, a gripping member and a connecting
member. As disclosed, the gripping member and the connecting
member recited in claim 35 form the steering wheel already
recited in claim 35. Thus, it appears that the appellant has
claimed the same element or elements twice. Consequently, claim
35 is rendered indefinite by the double inclusion of the same
element or elements. See Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701,5
1703 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
Obviousness
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ahrens in view of Niemeyer, for the reasons set
forth below.
Ahrens discloses a steering wheel including, inter alia, a
hub 1, a rim 2 and a spoke 3. As shown in the Figure, the rim 2
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
See column 1, lines 52-70, of Ahrens.6
See column 2, lines 15-21, of Ahrens.7
23
is in the general form of a truncated ring or annulus. In the
central part 3', spoke 3 is widened to form a casing, on the
surface of which switch elements are provided in the form of
keys. Key 7 is provided for operating a heater. Keys 4, 5 and 6
are provided for operating the horn, the headlights (from city to
bright) and foglights. Additionally, a switch element in the
form of a toggle handle 9 is provided for operating the
windshield wiper. Ahrens states that his invention permits the6
driver to operate the switch elements with his fingers.7
Niemeyer discloses a steering wheel 6 including, inter alia,
a wheel hub 7, a wheel rim 5 and spokes 1, 2, 3 and 4. As shown
in Figure 1, the rim 5 is of a circular shape. Located in the
spokes 1 and 2 are push button switches 9 and 10 for operating
the vehicle's directional indicators.
After the scope and content of the prior art are determined,
the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are
to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18,
148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
24
Based on our analysis and review of Ahrens and claim 4, it
is our determination that the only difference is the limitation
that the gripping member is of a circular shape. It is our view
that the switch elements of Ahrens are (1) readable on the term
"control pads" as used in claim 4, and (2) equivalent to the
structure recited in the appellant's specification which
corresponds to the "control means" recited in claim 4.
With regard to this difference, it is our opinion that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the appellant's invention to modify the shape of
Ahrens' rim to be circular in view of the art recognized
alternative circular shape as suggested and taught by Niemeyer's
circular rim since the shape of the rim is an obvious matter of
designer's choice.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is affirmed; the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 8, 10 to 15, 20,
21, 23, 25 to 33, 35, 37, 38 and 40 to 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
25
first paragraph is reversed; the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1, 2, 5, 12 to 15, 21, 23, 25 to 29 and 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is reversed; the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 1 to 3, 6, 8, 10 to 15, 20, 38 and
40 to 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kato is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
to 8, 10 to 12, 20, 21, 23, 25 to 33, 35, 37, 38, 43 and 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Niemeyer is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 2, 5 to 7, 20 to 33, 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rose is reversed; the decision
of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 20 to 33, 35, 37 and
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Scheibert is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 to 4, 6, 8, 10 to 15, 20 to 32, 35, 38 and 40 to 44
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ahrens is reversed; a new rejection of claims 3, 8, 10, 11, 20,
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
26
35, 38, and 40 to 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has
been added pursuant to provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b); a new
rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
has been added pursuant to provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b); and a
new rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been added
pursuant to provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Any request for reconsideration or modification of this
decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences based
upon the same record must be filed within one month from the date
hereof. 37 CFR § 1.197.
With respect to the new rejections under 37 CFR § 1.196(b),
should the appellant elect the alternate option under that rule
to prosecute further before the Primary Examiner by way of
amendment or showing of facts, or both, not previously of record,
a shortened statutory period for making such response is hereby
set to expire two months from the date of this decision. In the
event the appellant elects this alternate option, in order to
preserve the right to seek review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 or 145
with respect to the affirmed rejection, the effective date of the
affirmance is deferred until conclusion of the prosecution before
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
27
the examiner unless, as a mere incident to the limited
prosecution, the affirmed rejection is overcome.
If the appellant elects prosecution before the examiner and
this does not result in allowance of the application, abandonment
or a second appeal, this case should be returned to us for final
action on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request
for reconsideration thereof.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
WILLIAM E. LYDDANE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
28
NIKOLAY PARADA
1066 EAST 13TH ST.
BROOKLYN, NY 11230
Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
1
APPENDIX
4. A steering wheel for a transportation device, comprising:
a gripping member of a circular shape having a gripping
surface;
at least one spoke member positioned internally relative
said gripping member connecting said gripping member with a hub
member, and
a control means positioned on said at least one spoke member
for controlling various devices of said transportation device,
wherein said devices are selected from a group consisting of a
radio, air conditioner, heater, defroster, window controls, and
windshield wipers,
wherein said control means include a plurality of control
pads positioned for operation by fingertips of a driver on said
spoke member.
6. A steering wheel, comprising:
a gripping member of a circular shape having a gripping
surface;
at least one connecting member connecting said gripping
member with a steering column, and
a control means positioned on said steering wheel for
controlling various electric and electronic devices of said
transportation device, wherein said control means include a
plurality of control pads each of which is positioned for
operation by fingertips of a driver on said gripping member in a
separate open at one side recess, said pads being reachable by
the fingertips of the driver, wherein said devices are selected
from a group consisting of a radio, air conditioner, heater,
defroster, window controls, and windshield wipers.
APPEAL NO. 97-1025 - JUDGE NASE
APPLICATION NO. 08/183,571
APJ NASE
APJ LYDDANE
APJ COHEN
DECISION: AFFIRMED-IN-PART;
1.196(b)
Prepared By: Delores A. Lowe
DRAFT TYPED: 28 Oct 97
1st Rev. 13 Nov 97
FINAL TYPED:
3 MAN CONF