Appeal No. 96-3577
Application 08/419,064
the single reflector and optics for both eyes relative to the single display, as set forth in the
language of independent claim 40.
The Examiner has discussed a reference to Jones ('097) in the answer at page 12.
The Examiner stated in the paper mailed October 16, 1997, (Paper No. 17) that Jones
forms no part of the rejection. Therefore, we do not consider this reference in our review in
this decision.
Since all the limitations of independent claims 1, 18, 31, 37, 39 and 40 are neither
taught nor suggested by the applied prior art, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of
appealed claims 1, 18, 31, 37, 39 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since all the limitations of independent claims 1, 18, 31, 37, 39 and 40 are neither
taught nor suggested by the applied prior art, we cannot sustain the Examiner's
rejection of appealed claims 2-3, 6-8, 10-14,17, 20, 23-24, 26-28, and 42-45 which
depends therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS
CLAIMS 48 AND 49 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
Independent claim 48 does not contain the same detail with respect to the
limitations of the single display and the binocular optics as discussed above with
respect to claims 1, 18, 31, 37, 39 and 40. Appellants argue that it would not have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007