Appeal No. 97-2876
Application 08/335,008
employment of the word in the claims, that is, whether the
concept is present in the original disclosure. See In re
Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244, 176 USPQ 331, 336 (CCPA 1973).
There appears to be no basic dispute between appellants
and the examiner that at least two embodiments have been
disclosed. The first embodiment is essentially shown in the
early figures and relates to a telephone system separately
mounted with a vehicle’s rear-view mirror. The second
embodiment begins in Fig. 24 and shows a telephone system
which is integral with the rear-view mirror. On the basis of
the drawings presented with the application as filed, the
examiner asserts that there is no embodiment which shows a
telephone system partially integral and partially separable
with the rear-view mirror. This position of the examiner
focuses the issue upon the problem of mixing embodiments in
later than filing date claimed subject matter.
We reverse this rejection essentially because we are in
agreement with the positions first advocated by appellants in
the principal Brief on appeal. We make reference to the
summary of the invention at page 5, lines 11 through 18:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007