Appeal No. 94-4239
Application 07/942,293
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants' specification and claims , the applied3
patent, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We cannot sustain the examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Our reasoning follows.
The extended field-of-view mirror set forth in
appellants' claim 1 requires, inter alia, a convex reflective
surface, an opaque band "integrally formed with" the
reflective surface, and a mounting flange "integrally formed
with" the opaque surface.
At this point, we note that appellants'
specification does not define or explain the broad recitation
Claim 1, line 5 sets forth an "opaque" band, whereas claim3
4, dependent from claim 1, recites an opaque surface coating
disposed on the band. This latter recitation is consistent with
the language of the specification (page 4) which sets forth that
the opaque band 22 has an opaque surface coating 28 deposited
thereon. We understand the recitation of claim 4 to denote that
the opaque characteristic of the opaque band of claim 1 is
effected by an opaque surface coating disposed on the band.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007