Appeal No. 1998-0561
Application 08/340,339
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
On page 7 of the brief, Appellant argues that even
if Hagn and Troisdorf are combined as suggested, the resulting
device is not the claimed invention. In particular, Appellant
argues that neither Hagn nor Troisdorf teaches or suggests
first and second mirrors such as the first mirror is attached
externally to the vehicle and the second mirror is attached
internally to the vehicle to a roof-supporting column of the
vehicle. On page 8 of the brief, Appellant argues that in
regard to claim 1 neither Hagn nor Troisdorf discloses or
suggests the claimed second mirror that is attached to a roof-
supporting column of the vehicle, with the claimed roof-
supporting column supporting the roof of the vehicle.
The Examiner responds to these arguments on page 14
of the answer. The Examiner states that Hagn shows a second
mirror 15 that is attached and joined to the vehicle of the
roof- supporting column 13 of the vehicle. The Examiner
further argues that since the Appellant does not claim any
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007