Appeal No. 1997-2842
Application No. 08/510,921
principle [sic, principal] operation of the mirror device
would not change." Young states (column 1, lines 53-55) that
the area around the wide-angle mirror zone is ground to be
non-reflective. Varying the shape of non-reflective element
34 changes the sizes and shapes of both reflective and non-
reflective portions. Since the device is a mirror, changing
the size and shape of the reflective portion does change the
principal operation of the mirror device. Thus, we do not
find the examiner's argument to be persuasive.
Claim 1 further recites a wide-angle mirror zone within a
plane mirror zone. Young clearly shows one zone adjacent to
the other, not within it. The examiner never addresses this
limitation. Accordingly, Young fails to include each and
every limitation of the claims, and we cannot sustain either
the anticipation rejection or the obviousness rejection of
claim 1, nor its dependents, claims 3 and 4.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, and 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007