Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
"normal horizontal field of view" to be the normal field of
view of a human viewer and, therefore, we find Moss that
teaches unity magnification.
The examiner finds that "the 1:1 magnification is
inherent since any other ratio would disorient the wearer and
thus create a dangerous situation, especially if the system is
to be used by a firefighter, soldier, or pilot" (EA8-9). "The
mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient [to establish inherency.]" In
re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581-82, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA
1981) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). We agree with
appellants that nothing prevents a system from having
different magnifications. For example, a system could use a
camera with a telephoto lens having a narrow field of view
compared to the fixed field of view of the display. However,
we find that Moss expressly discloses unity magnification. In
addition, treating the examiner's inherency arguments as
obviousness arguments, we believe that unity magnification
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
human factors art for the reason stated by the examiner: a
fire fighter or other person using the display from the camera
- 28 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007