Test takers report a question involving whether the reflective qualities of a mirror should be included in the specification. You were to choose from a list of choices that comported with USPTO practice and procedure. Among the answers (from memory):
(A) Because the definition of mirror automatically includes its reflective qualities, there is no need to amend the specification to include the reflective qualities
(E) The mirror in one part of the specification is “parallel,” and the mirror in another part is “perpendicular.” The specification is conflicting and one who has knowledge in the art would not be able to tell the difference, so amend the specification.
The answer is (A) based on 2163.07(a) Inherent Function, Theory, or Advantage. Reflection is an inherent function of a mirror, so there is no need to mention it in the description. Whether it is positioned parallel or perpendicular has nothing to do with its reflective qualities, and would likely be obvious. “Special” reflective qualities known to one skilled in the art (if included – this is hypothetical) would be different and should be included for enablement purposes.