Appeal No. 96-3577
Application 08/419,064
invention for display to both the left and right eyes via the binocular optical system.
Appellants specifically argue that Schoolman ('957) does not teach nor fairly
suggest the use of a single display in a head mounted display system. Nor does the
reference address a binocular optical system for projecting an enlarged virtual image of
said displayed video at a distance from the user that is less than infinity. (See brief at
pages 14-18.) The prior art references applied against claims 1, 18, 31, 37, 39 and 40 do
not teach this claimed limitation because they do not relate to the single display. The
Examiner has not adequately addressed these limitations in the rejection of claim 1
nor in the argument section of the Examiner's answer. The Examiner has not provided a
convincing line of reasoning why and how it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a single display and how the
skilled artisan would have embodied the optics for the single display. Appellants also
argue that Diner does not provide the missing teachings nor provide a motivation to
combine the teachings. (See brief at pages 14-17.) We agree with appellants.
A review of the Heilig reference applied against independent claims 31 and 39, in
combination with Schoolman ('957) and Diner, similarly does not supply the missing
teachings concerning the single display/source of video information and the binocular
optical system, taken as a whole.
The Dahl and Schoolman ('555) references also do not teach the single display and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007