Appeal No. 95-2264
Application 08/125,750
answer (Paper No. 13), we understand the rejection before us on appeal to be that of
claims 5 through 9 and 11 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bloom in view of Musinu and Otaka.4
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full commentary with regard to
the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed October 28, 1994) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 12, filed July 26, 1994) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's rejection of the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not well founded and will therefore not be
sustained. Our reasoning in support of this determination follows.
The Bloom patent discloses an auxiliary, or after-market, wide angle mirror
assembly (10) for attachment to a conventional side-mounted rearview mirror (11, 12).
4The examiner’s attention is directed to § 1208 of the M.P.E.P. for proper
guidance on the content and format of an examiner’s answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007