Appeal No. 97-2876
Application 08/335,008
obvious to have mounted a telephone system as in Meyerle on
the base support structure or housing adaptor 150/180 of
Schofield’s Fig. 19 and not on the mirror assembly housing per
se, again which assembly is not shown in specifics in this
reference.
Therefore, we find ourselves in a general agreement with
the appellants’ assertion at page 6 of the reply brief filed
on June 6, 1996:
Of the claims on appeal, only one
(claim 43) is drafted in independent form.
It includes the limitation of a main
housing having a mirror surface, and a
plurality of telephone controls located on
the housing ... There is no hint or
suggestion of this configuration in the
prior art. The Examiner’s reliance on
Schofield as a primary reference which
teaches such a feature for use in
combination, fails in that Schofield et al
teach only the incorporation of a
microphone within a support base to which a
rearview mirror is attached. Only
Appellant discloses and claims "a plurality
of telephone controls located on the
housing, at least certain of the controls
being integral to the housing," a
limitation which is enabled by the
specification yet nowhere to be found in
the prior art.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007