Appeal No. 1998-0561
Application 08/340,339
specific structure or limitation of the roof-supporting column
of the vehicle, the roof-supporting column 13 of the vehicle
of Hagn would not differ from Appellant's invention.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is
the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5, (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S.
828 (1985).
Appellant's only independent claim, claim 1, recites
"a second mirror attached internally to the vehicle to a roof-
supporting column of the vehicle for providing a blind spot
view to the driver, the roof-supporting column supporting a
roof of the vehicle." We note that Appellant shows this
feature in Figures 1A through 1C. On page 8 of the
specification, Appellant states that the "[m]irror arrangement
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007