Appeal No. 1997-3823
Application No. 08/320,782
rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Furness alone.
Before turning to our evaluation of the Furness patent,
we look to the language of claim 1 on appeal to derive an
understanding of the scope and content of the claim. Since we
do not consider the eye of the user to be part of the optical
path, we are interpreting the claim language in claim 1, lines
7-9, “an optical path adjusting system for allowing an optical
path defined by the relative position of the reflector, the
display and an eye of the user to be adjusted” as being an
optical path adjusting system for adjusting the position of
the reflector and/or display so as to adjust the optical path
relative to the eye of a user. This construction of the claim
language is consistent with appellants’ specification and
drawings. The adjustment relative to “at least two axes” set
forth in claim 1 is interpreted as being an adjustment
relative to a horizontal and vertical axis of the head
mounted display.
With the above understanding of the metes and bounds of
the claimed subject matter, it is our opinion that the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007