Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
display 104 in figures 10 and 11, so the centerline of the
display could be displaced, but does not describe displacing
the centerline of the display. Burbo discloses that the
display can be tilted "between +10E and -14E" (col. 8,
lines 33-34). We agree with the examiner's conclusion that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
adjust the centerline of the display in Hanson downward in
view of the adjustments taught in Burbo. Appellants argue
that "Burbo only discloses the specific limitations of
dependent Claims 13 and 14 and does not add anything to the
disclosure of Hanson, because Burbo neither teaches nor
suggests the mounting of an infrared sensor camera underneath
the helmet brim to reside in an envelope of reduced heat as
recited in Claim 1 on which these dependent claims depend"
(Br26). Thus, appellants essentially argue that claims 13 and
14 are patentable because they depend on claim 1. Since we
conclude that claim 1 is unpatentable, we sustain the
rejection of claims 13 and 14.
Claim 18 recites that the display is mounted to the
helmet with "elastic or adjustable straps." Appellants argue
that the examiner erred in stating in Paper No. 8 that Burbo
- 22 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007