Appeal No. 2006-0909 Page 5
Application No. 09/282,320
although the appellants asserted that "[c]laims 1, 11, and 15 have been amended to
clarify the claimed invention," (Paper No. 15 at 3), no attempt was made to point out any
support for the adding the limitation that the claimed mirror is "movably arranged at an
angle to the camera."
In the latter amendment, the appellants noted that "[c]laims 1, 11, 15 and 18
have been amended to clarify that the field of view of the mirror substantially
corresponds to the field of view of the camera," (Paper No. 24 at 8), and alleged that
"[s]upport for the amendment is clearly provided throughout the specification, for
example, Abstract at lines 5-6 and shown in Fig. 1." (Id.) The field of view mentioned
in the abstract and shown in the Figure, however, are that of "the camera." (Abs., ll. 6-
7.) Rather than a field of view of the mirror, the abstract and Figure 1 disclose that the
mirror features "a field of reflection." (id. at l. 6 (emphasis added).) The relation
between the "field of view" of the mirror added to independent claims 1, 11, 15 and 18
and the "field of reflection" of the mirror recited in some of the dependent claims (e.g.,
claims 2, 13, and 19), moreover, is unclear.
In an ex parte appeal, "the Board is basically a board of review — we review . .
rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211
(Bd.Pat.App. & Int. 2001). Consequently, we leave the issue of whether the original
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007