Appeal No. 2001-1280
Application No. 07/977,163
a "blind-spot mirror" does not patentably distinguish claim 16
over either Lawson or Weureither (Figures 7 and 8).
Accordingly, we share the examiner's view that the combined
teachings of Lawson and Weureither are suggestive of the subject
matter of claim 16. The examiner's rejection of claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is therefore sustained.
Claim 11 is directed to a combination of a blind-spot mirror
supported in a frame and a principal mirror supported on the
blind-spot mirror by means of a wedge-shaped support structure.
The wedge-shaped support structure and principal mirror are
mounted on the blind-spot mirror such that the thin edge of the
wedge points generally in an inward direction toward the front
and opposite side of the vehicle. Claim 11 is somewhat
imprecise, in that the claim does not positively recite a vehicle
as part of the claimed invention but does refer to the vehicle to
which the rearview mirror is mounted (e.g., lines 7, 14, 50 and
54). Giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation10,
for purposes of our review of the rejection before us, we
10 In proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded
by the written description contained in the applicant's specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007