Appeal No. 2001-1280
Application No. 07/977,163
combination or modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, in evaluating
such references it is proper to take into account not only the
specific teachings of the references but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344
(CCPA 1968).
The combined teachings of Lawson and Weureither would have
suggested to one skilled in the art at the time of appellant's
invention a rearview mirror for mounting to the passenger's side
of a vehicle, the rearview mirror having a first mirror supported
by a frame adapted for mounting to the vehicle and a second
mirror mounted to the first mirror by means of a wedge-shaped
support structure, with the thin edge of the wedge pointing
inward toward the opposite side of the vehicle when the rearview
mirror is mounted on the passenger's side of the vehicle. Thus,
as appellant's claim 11 is not limited to a driver's side
rearview mirror, we perceive no error in the examiner's
determination that the teachings of Lawson and Weureither are
sufficient to establish that the subject matter of claim 11 would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellant's invention.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007