Appeal No. 98-0683
Application 08/505,853
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Short in view of Lystad and either Gleason or
Hou as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Viertel.
The rejections are explained on pages 5 and 6 of the answer.
The arguments of the appellant and examiner in support of their
respective positions may be found on pages 3-12 of the brief and
page 7 of the answer.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we observe that the preamble of
independent claim 7 is inconsistent with the body of that claim.
That is, the preamble sets forth "[a]n auxiliary sun visor"
whereas the body of the claim, in addition to setting forth
details of the auxiliary sun visor, also sets forth details of a
motor vehicle (e.g., "complementary attaching means . . . covering
the entire
said front surface of said rear view mirror" (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we interpret independent claim 7 to be directed to
the combination of an auxiliary sun visor and a motor vehicle
which includes a rear view mirror.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007