Appeal No. 2007-1188
Application 10/621,131
Examiner’s position, because it serves no useful purpose in certifying regulatory
compliance.”
The Applicant’s arguments are in error because the Applicant places the
emphasis on the testing procedures of Englander and ignores the disclosure, as
would be recognized by one with ordinary skill in the art, that school buses
transport passengers using arcuate crossover mirrors. From that perspective, one
with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the crossover mirrors will
benefit from remote control adjustment just the same as the rearview mirror
assemblies do in Foster and Bateman.
The fact that Englander is not concerned with the support structure or
movability of any mirror being tested does not take away from one’s ability to
appreciate that the crossover mirror has to be adjusted during actual use, just like
the rearview mirrors of Foster and Bateman, especially where, as here, it has
already been recognized in the art that crossover mirrors have to be manually
adjusted and that the manual process is time consuming. (FF. 6).
The Applicant’s approach in reading a prior art reference only for the
invention it is attempting to protect is improper. 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., 755
F.2d at 907, 225 USPQ at 25; see also In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 661, 193 USPQ
12, 17 (CCPA 1977). The Applicant improperly limits the problem to be
considered to that addressed by Englander’s invention, and fails to consider the
acknowledged preexisting problem in this field, which would have been known to
one with ordinary skill in the art, i.e., that crossover mirrors have to be manually
adjusted and the manual adjustment process is time consuming. (FF. 6). As the
Supreme Court has stated in KSR International Co., 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013