Appeal No. 95-1515
Application 08/027,656
subject at different angles. An image of a subject at one
angle is a distinct image from another image of the subject at
another angle. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 7.
On page 5 of the brief, Appellant argues that first
surface mirrors recited in claim 6 are utilized to guarantee
the reflection of only one image. However, we note that claim
6 only recites that the "mirror means comprises first surface
mirrors" and does not require the limitation as argued by
Appellant. We find that the Examiner's finding that Murphy,
Papritz and Sayanagi teach first surface mirrors as recited in
Appellant's claim 6 is reasonable. Therefore, we will sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 6.
On pages 5 and 6 of the brief, Appellant argues the
limitations recited in claims 5, 8 and 9. The Examiner has
not
shown how the references read on these limitations. We are
not inclined to dispense with proof by evidence when the
proposition at issue is not supported by a teaching in a prior
art reference or shown to be common knowledge of
unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court requires
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007