Appeal No. 2001-1280
Application No. 07/977,163
considered the amendment of Paper No. 27, filed May 21, 1996. In
any event, inasmuch as no amendment after the final rejection has
been approved for entry by the examiner, in the interest of
judicial economy, we have decided this appeal based on the
assumption that claims 11-17 as presented in Paper No. 19, filed
January 3, 1995, are the claims currently pending.1 Claim 15
stands objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim
and claims 11-14, 16 and 17 stand rejected.
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a rearview mirror which
provides a driver of a vehicle with general rearview vision as
well as a view of the driver's blind-spot area. We direct our
attention to the claims in Paper No. 19 in deciding this appeal.2
1 It is apparent from the examiner's remarks on page 2 of the Office
action mailed April 13, 1995 (Paper No. 20) that the examiner has treated the
copy of the specification and claims submitted by appellant on January 3, 1995
(Paper No. 19) as a request to substitute the claims (11-17) therein for
claims 11-17 previously pending and to substitute the specification for the
originally filed specification. The examiner has refused entry of the
substitute specification (Paper No. 20, page 2), but the amendment to claims
11-17 has been entered. The record is ambiguous as to whether the examiner
treated the amendment of Paper No. 19 as including a request to cancel claims
2 and 3, the only other claims pending prior to the amendment in Paper No. 19,
or whether claims 2 and 3 remain withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR
§ 1.142(b) as being directed to a non-elected invention.
2 Notwithstanding the examiner's statement to the contrary (answer, page
4), the appendix to appellant's brief is replete with errors in reproducing
these claims.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007