Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
supports our interpretation of claim 1 that the camera being
mounted "generally underneath said brim" does not require the
camera to be completely underneath the brim. Hanson discloses
that the face frame of figure 9 "includes an outwardly
extending shell 96 which houses the video display 88 and night
vision equipment 90" (col. 8, lines 2-4) and display 88 and
equipment 90 "are thereby protected" (col. 8, lines 6-7).
Although the protective face frame 94 in Hanson is not mounted
to the helmet brim, it extends the brim of the helmet as shown
in figure 9 to further protect the display 88 and equipment
90. In our opinion, the face frame in Hanson would have
suggested providing an additional protective shield of
appropriate shape to cover a camera or display. Further, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it an
obvious modification to mount the face frame to the brim of
the helmet in view of, for example, figures 6 and 12 of Hanson
which disclose pivotally mounting a display screen 44 and
display unit 14 to the side brim of a helmet. Appellants
argue that Coombs does not suggest that his shield 18 is for
protecting a camera (Br24). However, we conclude that Hanson
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007