Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
and matching of display/camera mounting alternatives.
Alternatively, when using the system of Hanson in a fire
fighting environment as suggested at column 15, line 39, using
a helmet with transparent shield as shown in figure 1 of
Coombs, the shield would naturally tend to cover a
display/camera system like that in figure 9 of Hanson.
Appellants argue (Br25) that figure 9 of Hanson, relied on by
the examiner, does not show a face shield and that Coombs does
not suggest mounting a display apparatus to the face shield.
While the examiner's rejection could have been more
persuasively reasoned, we conclude that claim 17 would have
been obvious over Hanson and Coombs for the reasons stated.
The rejection of claim 17 is sustained.
Claims 8, 13, 14, and 18 -- Hanson and Burbo
Claim 8 recites that the display is mounted for movement
in the horizontal and vertical directions (not horizontal and
vertical rotation as in claim 7). Hanson discloses a
display 104 in figure 10 which is mounted for rotation in the
vertical direction around pivotal connection 108. The
examiner applies Burbo. Burbo discloses mounting for a night
- 20 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007