Ex Parte Sena

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 11, 2006

10427072 (B.P.A.I. May. 11, 2006)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte CARLOS SENA
__________

Appeal No. 2006-1295
Application 10/427,072
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before OWENS, CRAWFORD and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from a rejection of claims 9-22, which are
all of the pending claims.
Appeal No. 2006-1295
Application 10/427,072

2

THE INVENTION
The appellant claims a cruise control system and method
wherein an indicator emits light of a first color when the cruise
control system is in the on condition and emits light of a second
color when the cruise control system is in the set condition.
Claim 9 is illustrative:
9. A cruise control system including an off condition, an
on condition, and a set condition, the cruise control system
comprising:

an indicator selectively operable to emit light having one
of a first color and a second color; and

a user-operable control movable to configure the cruise
control system in one of an off condition, an on condition, and a
set condition, the indicator emitting light of the first color
when the cruise control system is in the on condition and
emitting light of the second color when the cruise control system
is in the set condition.

THE REFERENCES

Masuda 4,796,716 Jan. 10, 1989
Knoll et al. (Knoll) 6,294,990 Sep. 25, 2001
Suzuki et al. (Suzuki) 6,396,394 May 28, 2002
Abel et al. (Abel) 6,693,523 Feb. 17, 2004
(filed Aug. 25, 2000)

Appeal No. 2006-1295
Application 10/427,072

3
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
claims 9, 10 and 12-19 over Suzuki in view of Abel and Masuda,
and claims 11 and 20-22 over Suzuki in view of Abel, Masuda and
Knoll.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to
address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 9, 18 and 20.
Each of those claims requires an indicator that emits light of a
first color when a cruise control system is in the on condition,
and emits light of a second color when the cruise control system
is in the set condition.
Suzuki discloses a cruise control system having indicators
that show when the system is in the on condition (indicator 131)
and the set condition (indicator 132) (col. 4, lines 20-21;
figure 1).
Abel discloses a motor vehicle instrument cluster display,
“the color and/or brightness of the display of more than one
measured value being changed when a value of a measured variable
is overshot or undershot and/or when a certain operating state of
the motor vehicle is entered. This change can be better
perceived by the driver” (col. 1, lines 34-39). “If unauthorized
Appeal No. 2006-1295
Application 10/427,072

4

speed ranges for the road being driven along at the time are
transmitted to the vehicle via telematic systems, the driver is
always informed of the authorized speed by these ranges being
highlighted in color on a speed display” (col. 1, lines 52-57).
“If the vehicle driver switches off the cruise control and
exceeds the authorized maximum speed on the section driven along
at the time, the color of representation of the pointer 6 changes
for example from white to green or red” (col. 2, lines 45-49).
Masuda discloses a motorcycle having a speed control switch
(19) which, when turned on, causes an indicator light positioned
adjacent the speedometer or within its face to be illuminated so
as to provide the rider with an indication that the speed control
has been activated (col. 5, lines 27-31).
Knoll discloses a motor vehicle display having two separate
lighting devices wherein “the instantaneous speed can be
displayed continuously, while the second lighting device can be
used to show the speed value corresponding to the set speed. The
scale segments showing the set speed are clearly distinguishable
by color, contrast and/or brightness from the scale segments
displaying the instantaneous speed” (col. 1, lines 29-34). The
lighting devices can be light emitting diodes (col. 2,
lines 21-23).
Appeal No. 2006-1295
Application 10/427,072

5
The examiner argues:
At the time of the invention, it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in this art to
change the color of the indicators disclosed in Suzuki
et al. to different colors based on the particular
operating state of the cruise control system as taught
by Abel et al. The motivation for doing so would have
been, in the case of a variable-color display, cruise
control marks (indicators) can be easily represented so
that the driver better perceives the change in the
operating state. [answer, page 4]

***

A person of ordinary skill in this art would have
the requisite skill and knowledge to modify the cruise
control indicators (131,132) disclosed in Suzuki et al.
to have different colors for the various operating
states of the cruise control system based on the
generally [sic] teaching disclosed in Abel et al. that
changes the color of instrument cluster indicator as a
way to better alert the driver of a change in the
operating state of the vehicle. [answer, page 7]

The operating state referred to by Abel is the speed
relative to the authorized maximum speed. The examiner’s
extension of Abel’s teaching to the on/set condition of a cruise
control is based upon impermissible hindsight in view of the
appellant’s disclosure. See W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393,
396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, we reverse the
examiner’s rejections.
Appeal No. 2006-1295
Application 10/427,072

6
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 9, 10 and 12-
19 over Suzuki in view of Abel and Masuda, and claims 11 and 20-
22 over Suzuki in view of Abel, Masuda and Knoll, are reversed.
REVERSED

)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )

TJO/ki

Appeal No. 2006-1295
Application 10/427,072

7

Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP
100 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202