Appeal No. 1997-0811
Application No. 08/240,554
are each movable in two dimensions, the examiner has offered
no cogent reason as to why it would have been obvious to move
the image sources cojointly with the reflection plates and
ocular lenses of the image transfer units. Heilig
specifically desires independent movement of the optical and
television units
[column 1, lines 32-36]. Also, the examiner never has
addressed the separate reflecting means of claim 1 which is
connected to the image transfer units.
Since there are several differences between the
invention of claim 1 and the teachings of Heilig and Schoolman
which have not been properly addressed by the examiner, we
find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of the obviousness of claim 1. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 based on Heilig
and Schoolman. Since claims 2-4, 17 and 18 depend from
independent claim 1, we also do not sustain the same rejection
with respect to these dependent claims.
With respect to independent claim 6, the examiner
reiterates the position discussed above, and additionally
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007