Appeal No. 95-4539 Page 8
Application No. 08/205,394
display limitations on elements of two embodiments of
Schoolman. (Final Rejection at 2-3; Schoolman, Figs. 9-10.)
Although the examiner recognizes that the configuration of
the mirrors and orientation of the display elements in
Schoolman differ from those of the claim, the examiner
concludes that positioning the display elements to “project
images toward each other is an obvious choice in engineering
design ....” (Final Rejection at 4.)
The examiner also observes that Park ‘890 discloses a 3-D
imaging system that alternately supplies new image data and
maintains prior image data to first and second display
elements to avoid flicker. The examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to supply alternately new image data
and maintain prior image data to the first and second display
elements of Schoolman to avoid flicker. (Id. at 3-4.)
The appellants counter that neither of the embodiments of
Schoolman suggests a pair of display elements that project
first and second images toward each other, wherein the images
are reflected to a respective pair of viewfinder lenses by two
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007