Appeal No. 95-1947
Application 07/787,447
artisan would have derived from the combination of Smith and
Gross, as argued by the examiner, may well have been to eliminate
one of the images of Smith by the teachings of Gross, but it
would not, in our view, have led the artisan to change the
surface angles to project one of the images away from the eye
range as required at the end of claim 1 on appeal.
In any event, assuming for the sake of argument that it
would have been proper to combine the teachings and suggestions
within 35 U.S.C. § 103 from the prior art relied upon, we
conclude, even as urged by appellants in the brief, that the
combination would not have rendered obvious to the artisan the
subject matter of independent claim 1 on appeal. Essentially,
Smith would have taught to the artisan the concept of overlapping
the two images of appellants’ prior art Figure 5 from rays l and
A
l at the viewer’s eye level as one approach to eliminating the
B
known problem of double images associated with the approach taken
in the appellants’ prior art Figures 5 and 6. On the other hand,
Gross teaches an entirely different approach, which is essen-
tially to cancel or otherwise suppress either one of the rays l
A
or l (Gross, column 2, lines 48 to 51). Thus, the artisan would
B
not have been led to the claimed approach taken by appellants of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007