Specifically reciting a member of a claimed “plurality” reduces the number of other members of the plurality that need to be present to meet the claim limitation. Here, for example, reciting that “one of said plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor” was found to only require one other sensor be present for the purposes of anticipation, even though the recited motion sensor was in practice only capable of serving as a secondary support sensor. “Because plurality means ‘two or more,’ and the claims expressly recite that ‘one of said plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor,’ it follows that only one additional sensor is required to meet the claims.” It may therefore be best to consider adding dependent claims to cover different numbers and arrangements of members constituting a claimed “plurality.”
Background / Facts: The patent on appeal from rejection at the PTO as part of an inter partes reexamination is directed to a system for automatically locking a vehicle’s brakes under certain predetermined conditions, such as where “movement of a vehicle may be unsafe,” including when a driver exits the vehicle, when a vehicle door or latch is open, and when a person or vehicle is close enough to the vehicle to create a potential for collision. The claims recite a plurality of sensors adapted to sense conditions, “wherein one of said plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor.”
Issue(s): Whether the vehicle motion sensor should nevertheless be construed as outside of the “plurality of sensors” because the motion sensor does not actuate the automatic brake mechanism (such that the plurality of sensors would require two other sensors in addition to the vehicle motion sensor, and therefore not be anticipated by the prior art).
Holding(s): No. “The recitation of a vehicle motion sensor as one of the plurality of sensors is consistent with the specification and the remainder of the claim limitations. As the Board explained, claim 7 only requires that ‘signals (plural) from the plurality of sensors (plural) indicate a condition (singular) that is unsafe for vehicle movement.’ [] In other words, the claims do not require each sensor to be individually capable of sensing an unsafe driving condition. This is consistent with the specification’s description of sensors that, like a vehicle motion sensor, are incapable of individually sensing an unsafe driving condition. … While [the patentee] is correct that preventing actuation of a brake mechanism and affirmatively actuating the brake appear conceptually different, this subtle difference is insufficient to rebut the plain language of claims 7 and 9, which define a vehicle motion sensor as one of the plurality of sensors.”