Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
counterweight to balance the display or camera. The examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the counterbalance limitation. The rejection of
claims 19-21 is reversed.
Although the rejection of claim 12 has been sustained
because it is not argued separately, we also consider it on
the merits because of the similarity to claim 24. Claim 12
recites that real view field angle of the camera is
substantially equal to the virtual image field angle of the
virtual image from the display, "whereby said virtual images
of said scene or object are substantially the same as the size
of said scene or object of [sic] which said camera produces
[of] said infrared image." The "real view field angle" is the
angle 23 subtended at the camera 16 by the scene 22 in
appellants' figure 2 and the "virtual image field angle" is
the angle 61 subtended at the viewer's eye by the virtual
image 22A in figure 6. Claim 24 recites that real field angle
of view of the camera is substantially equal to the virtual
image field angle of view produced by the eyepieces, "whereby
the magnification ratio of these field angles is substantially
unity to provide said person wearing said combination with
- 26 -
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007