Appeal No. 2001-1280
Application No. 07/977,163
mirror supported thereon serves as a "principal-reflector-surface
mirror." Weureither, on the other hand, merely describes the two
mirrors as providing two complementary views, rather than
designating one as a principal view mirror and the other as a
blind-spot mirror. However, we discern no reason why the Lawson
mirror assembly lacks the capability to be used such that the
mirror 5 is the blind-spot mirror and the mirror 6 supported
thereon is the principal-reflector-surface mirror. This would
merely involve the driver adjusting the mirror assembly by
looking into the mirror 6, with the mirror 5 then providing an
auxiliary viewing area not afforded by the mirror 6 and thus
serving as a blind-spot mirror. Similarly, the Weureither mirror
assembly is fully capable of such use. Thus, in essence, the
only difference, if any, between the subject matter of claim 16
and the Lawson or Weureither mirror assembly is in the manner in
which the mirror assembly is used.
It is well settled, however, that the recitation of an
intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old
product patentable. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It follows then that the
designation of the wedge-supported mirror as a "principal-
reflector-surface mirror" and the conventional rearview mirror as
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007