Appeal No. 1998-0561
Application 08/340,339
in the forward zone of the door in connection with the side
pane 12.
From these teachings, we find that element 13 is not
a roof-supporting column as asserted by the Examiner.
Therefore, we fail to find that Hagn teaches that the second
mirror 16 is attached internally to the vehicle to a roof-
supporting column of the vehicle for providing a blind side
view to the driver,
the roof-supporting column supporting a roof of the vehicle as
recited in Appellant's claim 1. Furthermore, we note that the
other references relied on by the Examiner do not provide this
missing piece.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 7 and 9 through 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is
reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007