Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
view of Hanson and Moss adds nothing to Hanson with
regard to teaching or suggesting the mounting of an
infrared sensor camera underneath the brim of a helmet to
reside in an envelope of reduced heat.
Thus, appellants do not contest the examiner's obviousness
rationale, but essentially argue that claims 10-12 are
patentable because they depend from claim 1. Because we
conclude that claim 1 would have been obvious over Hanson and
agree with the examiner's conclusion that the subject matter
of claims 10-12 would have been obvious in view of Moss, the
rejection of claims 10-12 is sustained.
Claims 19-21 recite a counterbalance on the helmet
opposite to the camera. The examiner concludes that
counterbalance is suggested by the following statement in Moss
(col. 1, lines 58-62): "Also the distribution of components
of a helmet mounted display is an important consideration,
since the moments of inertia with respect to the wearer's
spine should be minimized in order to avoid wearer discomfort
and fatigue." However, Moss discloses that "the heavier
components of the system are mounted symmetrically close to
the wearer's head, thereby minimizing both the weight and the
inertial moment of the overall display which is added to the
helmet" (col. 5, lines 2-6)), rather than using a
- 25 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007