Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
the wearer of the head gear 102" (Br19) and, as shown in
figure 11, "is not mounted underneath the brim of the Hanson
helmet 40" (Br20). Appellants do not argue that figures 10
and 11 do not show a camera. Appellants do address figure 9,
which shows equipment 90 which could be an infrared video
camera, in their arguments. We find that the night vision
equipment 90 in figure 9 is intended to be mounted in the same
relative position to the user's eye and the helmet as the
display 104 in figure 11. The display 104 is "generally
underneath said brim" because it is located mostly underneath
the brim of the helmet 40. Also, the face frame "includes an
outwardly extending shell 96 which houses the video display 88
and night vision equipment 90" (col. 8, lines 2-4) and the
display 88 and equipment 90 "are thereby protected" (col. 8,
lines 6-7). The outwardly extending shell of the face frame
forms an extension of the helmet brim. In addition, as
discussed supra, it would have been a matter of common sense
to one skilled in the art to locate a camera under the helmet
brim where there is known to exist an envelope of reduced
heat.
For these reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007