Appeal No. 1997-0811
Application No. 08/240,554
claim 1 which they allege are not taught or suggested by the
combination of Heilig and Schoolman. Among these features are
the means for supporting and linking the pair of image
transfer units, the means for supporting the pair of image
sources for movement cojointly with the image transfer units,
and an additional reflection means positioned to receive
images from the reflection plate and ocular lens of the image
transfer units [brief, pages 13-16]. The examiner disagrees
with each of appellants’ observations.
We agree with the position of appellants and
essentially concur with each of the arguments made by them in
the briefs. While the examiner has found some similarities
between the claimed invention and the teachings of Heilig and
Schoolman, the examiner has essentially ignored specific
details of the
invention recited in claim 1 which are argued by appellants as
demonstrating nonobviousness. We agree with appellants that a
single means in Heilig does not provide support and linkage
functions for the image transfer units. Although Heilig
teaches that the image transfer units and the image sources
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007