Appeal No. 2001-1280
Application No. 07/977,163
shall sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 17 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.8
The obviousness rejection
As we understand it, claim 16 is directed to a combination
of a rearview mirror, a principal-reflector-surface mirror and a
wedge-shaped support structure attached to the rearview mirror
for holding the principal-reflector-surface mirror over9 the
rearview mirror at the proper angle with respect to the rearview
mirror so that a portion of the rearview mirror serves as a
blind-spot mirror. The claim does not include a vehicle, much
less any particular mounting arrangement or location of the
rearview mirror to a vehicle.
A "blind-spot," as defined on pages 4-5 of appellant's
specification, is the area behind the driver's head, adjacent the
vehicle and extending into the adjacent lane, which the driver
cannot see in a conventional rear-view mirror. As explained on
8 Appellant filed an amendment on May 21, 1996 (Paper No. 27) which,
except for an evident inconsistency in claim line references, appears to
overcome the antecedent basis problem on which the rejection is grounded.
There is no indication that the examiner has considered this amendment. We
presume that the examiner will, upon consideration of Paper No. 27, enter the
amendment, with the necessary clarifications in line numbering, to overcome
the rejection, especially in light of the examiner's indication of allowable
subject matter in claim 17.
9 Consistent with appellant's underlying disclosure, we understand
"over" to mean "upon the surface of" as opposed to "above" (Webster's New
World Dictionary, Third College Edition (Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007