Appeal No. 1998-0607 Page 5
Application No. 08/506,857
Turning first to claim 1, the appellants' specification, on page 3, discloses that the
invention is directed to a modular apparatus comprising at least two modules, with one of the
modules adapted to contain a screen washing liquid and the other module supporting means for
wiping the windshield, wherein one of the modules serves to support at least one wing mirror.
On pages 5-6, the appellants' specification discloses embodiments of the invention wherein each
of the screen wiping modules supports a wing element or mirror (see Figures 2 and 3).
Claim 1 recites a modular screen apparatus comprising a plurality of modules adapted
for assembly together and to the vehicle, with one of the modules constituting a windshield
washing liquid reservoir and another of the modules carrying a windshield wiping means, and
at least one rear view mirror carried on said plurality of assembled modules. As we see it, this6
claim merely requires that at least one rear view mirror be carried on at least one of the
assembled modules, as a rear view mirror which is carried on any of the assembled modules is
carried on the plurality of assembled modules. From our viewpoint, while the claim is broad,
in that it encompasses the wing mirror being carried on the windshield washing liquid reservoir
module, the windshield wiping means module or an additional module, the metes and bounds of
the claim are sufficiently well defined to satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph of 35
6The claim language "the vehicle further including at least one rear view mirror . . ." does not appear to
be commensurate in scope with the claim, which does not include the vehicle. We interpret this language not as a
positive recitation of the vehicle as part of the claim but merely as requiring that a mirror be carried on the
plurality of assembled modules of the modular apparatus. As this issue is not before us on appeal, we leave to the
examiner and the appellants consideration of whether "vehicle" in the above-quoted clause should be changed to
"apparatus."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007