Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
Appellants make two arguments with respect to the
examiner's statement that "fig. 10 of Hanson suggests, and
thus teaches, the attachment of the camera under the brim"
(Paper No. 8, page 2; similar statement at EA3). First,
appellants state that "the Hanson video monitor or display 104
is mounted to the head gear 102" (Br19). It is true that
figures 8-11 of Hanson show displays and night vision
equipment mounted to a face frame or headgear worn under a
helmet. However, as discussed supra, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have considered it an obvious modification to
mount the equipment to the helmet itself or to make the mount
part of the helmet in view of the other embodiments of Hanson,
such as figures 2, 6, and 12. In addition, appellants
disclose and claim that the camera and display do not have to
be mounted to the outer hard shell of the helmet, but can be
mounted to a removable inner deformable cap as recited in
dependent claim 3. The strap and headgear for mounting the
camera and display in Hanson might be broadly construed to be
part of the helmet.
Second, appellants argue that the "video display or
monitor extends outwardly from and forwardly of the face of
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007