Appeal No. 2007-1188
Application 10/621,131
11. The Applicant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the
crossover mirror 22 shown in Englander’s Figure 3 is an arcuate mirror.
12. Englander does not disclose any particular concern with whether a
vehicle mirror assembly being tested is capable of being adjusted by remote
control or with the design of the mirror’s frame and support structure.
13. Englander does not disclose, for a crossover mirror assembly, a frame
having a tubular region defining a center point, a mirror mounting support coupled
within the tubular region, an electronic actuator, or an electronic controller.
14. The Examiner determined that Foster and Bateman each disclose a
vehicular mirror frame having a tubular region defining a center point, and a
mirror mounting support coupled within the tubular region. (Answer 5-6).
15. The Examiner determined that Foster and Bateman each disclose an
electronic actuator and an electronic controller, specifically, as is required by
Applicant’s claim 1, albeit for a vehicle rearview mirror and not a crossover
mirror. (Answer 3-4).
E. Principles of law
A prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of
technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and
attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907,
225 USPQ 20, 25 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985).
If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013