Appeal No. 95-1947
Application 07/787,447
using an essentially wedged reflection plate (the diagonally
disposed first and second surfaces of claim 1 on appeal) to
redirect one of the rays l and l of prior art Figure 5. TheA B
teaching value of canceling or suppressing one of two rays in
Gross would not have led the artisan in our view to have changed
the surface angle within the windshield in Smith to project one
of the images away from the eye range.
Since the prior art relied upon does not support the
examiner’s conclusion of the obviousness of the subject matter of
claims 1 and 2 on appeal, the rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007