Appeal No. 2005-1045
Application No. 09/225,574
individual performance model to a student’s performance (brief,
page 9; reply brief, page 5). Mann discloses that the student
views an image of the student and instructor in a monitor
(col. 34, lines 41-44). Brostedt, therefore, would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, using Brostedt’s
glasses in Mann’s method and system to provide the benefit
disclosed by Brostedt of eliminating the need for the student to
change the student’s field of vision to view the monitor (page 4,
lines 3-5).
We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 39 and claims 43-
45, 49, 52 and 53 that stand or fall therewith.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 38, 40-42, 46-48, 50, 51 and 54
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Mann, and claims 39, 43-45, 49, 52
and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mann in view of Brostedt, are
affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007