Appeal No. 96-1462
Application 08/025,189
We also find that the examiner has not properly
interpreted the mounting recitations of claim 1. Specifically,
claim 1 recites that the projector is fixedly mounted to the
housing whereas the screen is movably mounted to the housing.
There is no question that the projector and the screen of
Mercedes-Benz are both included within the element labeled as 19.
This element is movably mounted with respect to the housing in
Mercedes-Benz. We do not see how the Mercedes-Benz projector can
be deemed to be fixedly mounted to the housing while at the same
time the screen is deemed to be movably mounted. The projector
and the screen in Mercedes-Benz are fixed relative to each other
so that they cannot meet the different mounting connections of
claim 1.
Since we find that Mercedes-Benz does not fully meet all
the recitations of independent claim 1, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-3, 10 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Although separately argued independent claim 22 is
broader than claim 1 just discussed, claim 22 still recites a
projection television system and a projector which is fixedly
mounted to the housing. These features are not met by Mercedes-
Benz for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007