Ex Parte Behbehani

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 17, 2009

11224842 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte IRAJ BEHBEHANI
________________

Appeal 2009-002788
Application 11/224,842
Technology Center 2800
________________

Decided:1 June 17, 2009
________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 25, which is the sole pending claim. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-002788
Application 11/224,842

2
The Invention
The Appellant claims a driver side mirror having a smoothly
continuously diminishing elliptical curvature away from the vehicle and, in
the region of highest elliptical curvature, an upright visible adjustment line.
Claim 25 is as follows:
25. In a driver side mirror adjustably mounted on an exterior
portion of a motor vehicle having a direction of travel, the
mirror of the type having an upright axis perpendicular to the
direction of travel of the vehicle, the mirror having the further
optical characteristic improvement comprising:
a continuously curved elliptical cross sectional shape for
the mirror ranging from highest elliptical curvature extending
from a mirror edge closest to the vehicle and smoothly
continuously diminishing in elliptical curvature over the entire
cross sectional shape all of the way to an edge of the mirror
away from the vehicle; and
a visible adjustment line on the mirror in the upright
direction in the region of highest elliptical curvature defining
a driver side view of the mirror and a traffic side view, with
the mirror adjustably positioned relative to the vehicle such
that the driver side view presents the driver side of the vehicle
and the traffic side view presents an optical cone adjacent to
the vehicle.
The References
Luchtenberg 4,245,894 Jan. 20, 1981
McCord 4,264,144 Apr. 28, 1981
The Rejection
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over McCord in view
of Luchtenberg.

Appeal 2009-002788
Application 11/224,842

3
OPINION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection.
Issue
Has the Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the applied references would have rendered prima facie
obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, an upright visible adjustment line
on a mirror having a continuously curved elliptical cross-sectional shape?
Findings of Fact
McCord discloses a rearview mirror that has a portion with a curved
cross-section and is mounted such that the curved portion is toward the
driver (col. 3, ll. 39-46; Figs. 7, 8).
Luchtenberg discloses “a [vehicle] mirror having two sections
contacting each other and inclined with respect to each other, forming an
angle” (col. 1, ll. 7-9). The two angled sections contact each other in an
upright kink line “indicating to the user which mirror section is reflecting the
viewed image” (col. 1, ll. 46-47). “[I]ndividual sections of the glasss [sic]
on either side of the kink line may be curved as desired” (col. 2, ll. 24-26).
The kink line “is clearly visible to a user of the mirror” (col. 2, ll. 42-43) and
“allows [the] driver, for example, using such a mirror to immediately
determine from the reflected image which mirror section is reflecting the
image of another vehicle, aiding the driver in properly orienting and
positioning the reflected vehicle with respect to himself” (col. 1, ll. 47-52).
The Appellant argues that “in combining the kink line of Luchtenberg
with the mirror of McCord, a discontinuously curved elliptical cross section
that unevenly diminishes in curvature from an edge of the mirror closest to
Appeal 2009-002788
Application 11/224,842

4
the vehicle to an edge of the mirror away from the vehicle would result”
(Br. 5).
The Examiner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the
McCord invention include the line as taught by Luchtenberg for the purpose
of marking a change in the curvature of the unitary body” (Ans. 4).
The Examiner relies upon McCord’s mirror as having a continuously
curved cross-section (Ans. 4). Luchtenberg’s kink line informs the user as
to which of the mirror sections angled with respect to each other at the kink
line is reflecting the image of a vehicle, thereby enabling the driver to
properly orient and position the vehicle with respect to the driver (col. 1,
ll. 39-52). The Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have considered Luchtenberg’s disclosed benefit of a kink line at
mirror sections angled with respect to each other to be applicable to a
continuously curved mirror which, it appears, would reflect an image on
both sides of an upright line on the continuously curved mirror.2
The Examiner argues that Luchtenberg’s disclosure that the mirror is
sharply bent does not exclude continuous curvature because a point of high
continuous curvature can be interpreted as being within the definition of
“sharply bent” (Ans. 5).
That argument is not well taken because the Examiner has not
provided evidence that a continuous curve can have a sharp bend.
As stated in KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007),
“‘rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory

2 The Appellant uses the adjustment line to adjust each side view mirror so
that its cone of vision overlaps that of the rearview mirror (Spec. 2:17-25).
Appeal 2009-002788
Application 11/224,842

5
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’”
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Examiner has
not provided the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning.
Conclusion of Law
The Appellant has shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the applied references would have rendered prima facie
obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, an upright visible adjustment line
on a mirror having a continuously curved elliptical cross-sectional shape.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over McCord in view
of Luchtenberg is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

PL Initial:
sld

SCHNECK & SCHNECK
P.O. BOX 2-E
SAN JOSE, CA 95109-0005