Appeal No. 95-1947
Application 07/787,447
The pertinent portions of claim 1 on appeal require that
a second surface of a reflection plate be diagonally disposed in
relation to a first surface of the same plate and “wherein said
display light diagonally falling on said second surface is
reflected in a direction other than toward the eye range.”
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Gross 2,750,833 June 19, 1956
Smith 5,013,134 May 7, 1991
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light
of appellants’ admitted prior art teachings in Figures 5 and 6,
the discussion thereof in the prior art at pages 2 and 3 of the
specification as filed, and principally the paragraph bridging
pages 2 and 3, as well as Smith and Gross.
OPINION
Upon considering the teachings and suggestions of the prior
art relied upon in conjunction with the examiner’s detailed
reasoning process in the statement of the rejection between pages
2 and 4 of the answer, even as repeated somewhat in the
responsive arguments portion of the answer at page 5, further in
light of appellants’ brief on appeal, we reverse the rejection of
claims 1 and 2 on appeal.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007