Appeal No. 1998-0678
Application No. 08/411,299
Up Display (HUD) but it is a single image being displayed.
We would agree with appellants with their assessment of
Burgess and we disagree with the examiner that page 2 of the
instant specification admits that HUD and HMD devices are
devices that combine images. The cited portion of the
specification only states that HUD and HMD devices “rely on
optical combiners to join image information generated by a
computer to augment a scene being
viewed.” It does not say, necessarily, that the HUD and HMD
devices are, themselves, the combiners.
However, appellants set forth a more convincing line of
reasoning for obviousness, at page 5 of the brief, than does
the examiner. That is, appellants concede, and we agree, that
the pilot’s eye, in Burgess, provides the second “vision
system” having the second perspective view of the scene which
forms an image. Even though, as appellants state, “the spirit
of Burgess is quite different than the spirit of Applicants’
invention” [brief-page 5], the pilot’s eye being a second
vision system, the broad language of independent claims 1 and 2
is met by Burgess, alone.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1 and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007