Appeal No. 97-2876
Application 08/335,008
As to the rejection of independent claim 43, the weight
of the evidence provided from the collective teachings of
Meyerle and Schofield does not support the examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness of the subject matter of this claim
on appeal. Further, the disadvantage noted by the examiner in
the discussion between pages 15 and 16 of the answer that the
physical position of such a critical device as an automobile
rear-view mirror that may be moved when a phone placed on it
is used further argues against obviousness of the subject
matter of claim 43, at least to the extent asserted to have
been obvious based upon the collective teachings of Meyerle
and Schofield alone. Schofield teaches that only a phone’s
microphone is a part of the bracket for a rear view mirror
assembly. Therefore, since we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 43, the respective rejections of the
dependent claims must also be reversed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007