Appeal No. 95-4539 Page 10
Application No. 08/205,394
parallel. The LCDs project parallel images inward rather than
toward each other as in the claimed invention.
The examiner, furthermore, has failed to identify a
suggestion anywhere else in the prior art to rearrange
Schoolman’s display elements to project images toward each
other. The examiner’s argument to arrange the display
elements to project images toward each other as a matter of
design choice, (Final Rejection at 4), is conclusory. Rather
than providing a line of reasoning that explains why such a
rearrangement would have been desirable, the examiner opines,
“[t]he direction that the display elements are pointed makes
no significant difference as long as the images are directed
by mirrors to the viewer’s eyes.” (Id.) Clearly, this
statement of the examiner’s rejection does not amount to a
prima facie case of obviousness. Because the examiner has not
established a prima facie case, we cannot agree that the
combination of Schoolman and Park ‘890 would have suggested
the subject matter of claim 18 or its dependent claims 2, 7-9,
13-15, 18, and 20. Because neither Park ‘555, Yang, nor
Butterfield cures the deficiencies in the combination of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007