Appeal No. 1997-0811
Application No. 08/240,554
825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories,
Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential
part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-
12, 17 and 18 as unpatentable over Schoolman in view of
Heilig. With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner
asserts that Heilig
essentially teaches the claimed invention except for the
recitation of a reflection plate in the image transfer units.
The examiner cites Schoolman as teaching the use of reflection
plates in a head mounted stereoscopic display. The examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
add Schoolman’s reflecting plate to the Heilig device [answer,
pages 3-4].
Appellants point to several features of independent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007