Appeal No. 95-1947
Application 07/787,447
The structure of the prior art is shown in appellants’ prior
art Figures 5 and 6, which causes the ray of light l entering the
reflection plate 20 in Figure 5 to produce a reflected ray l
A
from the first surface 20A and a refracted ray l from the inside
B
of the second surface 20B of the reflection plate 20. The viewer
at the eye range position 40 sees a double image. The examiner’s
approach recognizes this and relies upon the teachings in Smith
to eliminate the double image by means of an optical wedge within
the windshield of the automobile in Smith such as to adjust the
angle between the first and second surfaces of the reflection
plate (the windshield of the automobile). The examiner further
recognizes that this combination does not direct the light from
the second surface away from the claimed eye range, but further
relies upon Gross to teach that it would have been obvious to
solve the same problem of double images by eliminating one of the
reflected rays. The examiner’s reasoning at page 5 of the answer
is essentially the same.
We do not agree with the examiner’s basic conclusion. The
examiner construes Gross as teaching the avoidance of the merged
image concept taught by Smith which essentially causes a blurred
infringed image. The teachings, suggestions and inferences the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007