Appeal No. 1998-0607 Page 10
Application No. 08/506,857
undue experimentation. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563-64 (CCPA
1982). In calling into question the enablement of the appellants' disclosure, the examiner has the initial
burden of advancing acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement. Id.
In particular, the examiner asserts that the specification does not adequately disclose a
means articulating the rear view mirror, as recited in claim 4, or a means for retracting the rear
view mirror (answer, page 5). The appellants, on the other hand, argue that means for
articulating and retracting mirrors mounted on vehicles were well known in the art at the time
of the appellants' invention, as exemplified by the teachings of Kogita, Hou and Miller, and
that, accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to practice the claimed
invention without undue experimentation (brief, pages 9-11). Kogita discloses an actuator and
linkage for pivoting and extending an external mirror mounted on an automotive vehicle (see
Figure 1) and Hou discloses a motor 3 and worm 5 for linearly extending and retracting an
auxiliary mirror frame 12 out of or into a main mirror frame 11 and a motor 111 for rotating
the base 113 of a main mirror rearward and frontward. Miller discloses an extendible mirror
(Figures 1-6) which is linearly retracted and extended by means of a piston and cylinder into
and out of a well in the front fender of a vehicle. In a second embodiment (Figures 7-14),
Miller discloses a mirror mounted in a ball and socket joint for pivotal movement effected by a
piston and cylinder unit between a retracted position (Figures 10, 12) within a well in a door
panel and an extended position (Figures 8, 11). The examiner concedes (answer, page 9) that
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007