Ex parte MOU

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 2000

08510921 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte LIN C. MOU
____________
Appeal No. 1997-2842
Application No. 08/510,921
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellant's invention relates to an exterior rearview
mirror for a vehicle. The mirror includes a plane mirror
zone, a wide-angled mirror zone disposed within the plane
mirror zone, and a circular blank zone between the two mirror
zones for providing wider images without interference between
Appeal No. 1997-2842
Application No. 08/510,921
2
the two mirror zones. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
invention, and it reads as follows:
1. An automobile exterior rearview mirror comprising:
a plane mirror zone;
an integral circular, convex or concave, wide-angle
mirror zone disposed at a predetermined position within said
plane mirror zone,
a circular blank zone surrounding said wide-angle zone
and located between said plane mirror zone and said wide-angle
mirror zone and integral therewith, said blank zone defining a
surface separating said wide-angle and plane zones, so that
said exterior rearview mirror provides a wider image without a
blind spot or any interference between zones.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Young 3,338,655 Aug. 29,
1967
Claims 1, 3, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Young.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed January 9, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 17, filed September 27, 1996) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
Appeal No. 1997-2842
Application No. 08/510,921
3
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse both the anticipation rejection and
also the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4.
Claim 1 requires, in pertinent part, a circular blank
zone. Appellant argues (Brief, page 3) that Young fails to
disclose a circular blank zone. The examiner (Answer, page 3)
points to element 34, which has a circular inner circumference
and a substantially square outer circumference. As shown in
appellant's drawings, appellant clearly intends for "circular
blank zone" to mean a ring with circular inner and outer
circumferences. Thus, as interpreted in light of the
specification, the claimed circular blank zone is not met by
Young's element 34.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 4) that it "would have
been obvious or within the level of one of ordinary skill in
the mirror art . . . to modify the entire geometric shape of
element (34) of Young to be circular, due to the fact that the
Appeal No. 1997-2842
Application No. 08/510,921
4
principle [sic, principal] operation of the mirror device
would not change." Young states (column 1, lines 53-55) that
the area around the wide-angle mirror zone is ground to be
non-reflective. Varying the shape of non-reflective element
34 changes the sizes and shapes of both reflective and non-
reflective portions. Since the device is a mirror, changing
the size and shape of the reflective portion does change the
principal operation of the mirror device. Thus, we do not
find the examiner's argument to be persuasive.
Claim 1 further recites a wide-angle mirror zone within a
plane mirror zone. Young clearly shows one zone adjacent to
the other, not within it. The examiner never addresses this
limitation. Accordingly, Young fails to include each and
every limitation of the claims, and we cannot sustain either
the anticipation rejection or the obviousness rejection of
claim 1, nor its dependents, claims 3 and 4.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, and 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.
Appeal No. 1997-2842
Application No. 08/510,921
5
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-2842
Application No. 08/510,921
6
DONALD C. CASEY, ESQ.
311 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET
SUITE 100
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314