Appeal No. 96-1419
Application 08/081,971
door. Based on this interpretation, claim 1 and dependent claims
2 through 7 and 9 are therefore limited to a mirror-mounting
bracket installed in place on the vehicle door, and claim 12 is
likewise limited to a mounting assembly installed in place on the
vehicle door. Any other interpretation would raise a question
of indefiniteness under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Certain informalities in appealed claims 1, 2, 4, 8 and 12
are deserving of interpretation and of correction in the event of
further prosecution before the examiner. A discussion of these
informalities follows.
In appealed claim 1, the recitation in clauses (a) (1) and
(b) (3) of “the winged window,” lacks strict antecedent basis and
is interpreted to refer back to the recitation of “a wing window
opening” in the preamble of the claim. In clause (b) (2) of claim
1, the recitation of “the portions” is interpreted to refer back
the claimed clamping portions.
In appealed claim 2, the recitation of “the base member,”
which also lacks antecedent basis, is interpreted to refer back
to the combination of the claimed first and second members in
light of the language in claim 8.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007