Appeal No. 2007-1188
Application 10/621,131
For an obviousness determination, any need or problem known in the field
of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the applicant can be a
reason for combining prior art elements in the manner claimed. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
F. Analysis
The Applicant does not dispute that Foster and Bateman each disclose a
mirror frame with a tubular region which defines a center point. The Applicant
does not dispute that Foster and Bateman each disclose a mirror mounting support
coupled within the tubular region. The Applicant correctly points out, however,
that the mirror frame and mounting support disclosed by both Foster and Bateman
are for a vehicle rearview mirror and not a crossover mirror which is attached to a
front surface of the vehicle.
The Applicant does not dispute that Foster and Bateman each disclose an
electronic actuator and an electronic controller precisely as recited in Applicant’s
claim 1, except that the actuator and controller of Foster and Bateman are for
controlling a vehicle rearview mirror and not a crossover mirror.
The Applicant’s argument in this Appeal is this -- that there is no motivation
for one with ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of either Foster or
Bateman with regard to the physical support structure and the electronic remote
control of rearview mirrors to the crossover mirror assembly illustrated and
discussed in Englander. The argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts (Br. 7): “[T]here is no motivation to add an electronic
control element to the software based mirror testing method taught in Englander.”
The Applicant also stated (Br. 6): “[T]here is no motivation to modify Englander
to include an electronic actuator and electronic controller system, contrary to the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013