Appeal No. 95-4539 Page 9
Application No. 08/205,394
mirrors arranged at a right angle relative toward each
another. In addition, the appellants note that the embodiment
of Schoolman featuring LCDs does not employ mirrors. (Appeal
Br. at 12-13.)
To establish obviousness, the prior art as a whole must
have contained something to suggest the “desirability” of a
modification or combination of prior art references.
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We agree with the appellants that Schoolman fails to suggest
display elements that project first and second images toward
each other, wherein the images are reflected to viewfinder
lenses by two mirrors arranged at a right angle to each
another. The embodiment depicted in Figure 9 of Schoolman
arranges its display elements, viz., cathode ray tubes (CRTs)
56, in parallel. The CRTs project parallel images outward
from a viewer’s perspective rather than toward each other.
Similarly, the embodiment depicted in Figure 10 of Schoolman
also arranges its display elements, viz., LCDs 66, in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007