Appeal No. 96-1555
Application 08/229,619
mirrors so that the image axis at the juncture between mirrors
presents "an angle of less than 90E relative to said display
surface," and so that each of the mirrors presents "an
interior base angle of less than 90E relative to said display
surface." Claim 36 is directed to the subcombination mirror
array without the display means and contains similar mirror
limitations to claim 1 except that it uses the word "the"
instead of "said."
We agree that Akins has very little relevance to the
subject matter of claims 1 and 36 except that it uses a
display means to provide the image. Akins's mirrors are
trapezoidal, not triangular as claimed. The mirrors cannot be
triangular to produce the spherical illusion. The mirrors
diverge outwardly from the display surface and, so, do not
have mirror junction image axes or mirror surfaces at less
than 90E relative to said display surface as claimed.
The Examiner recognizes that "Akins does not disclose
reflective triangle shape[d] members having angles of less
than 90 [degrees] with respect to the display surface . . ."
(EA3). The Examiner relies on Coates and reasons (EA3-4;
similar reasoning is found in the Final Rejection, pages 3-4):
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007