Appeal No. 1997-3823
Application No. 08/320,782
disclosure of Furness fails to teach or suggest an optical
path adjusting system that is capable of being adjusted
relative to “at least two axes of the head mounted display
system.” The examiner reads the “at least two axes of the
head mounted display system,” in view of Furness, to be an
axis for rotating and adjusting the position of a reflector
(e.g., 120 in Furness Figures 18 and 19) and the adjusting by
the user of the head mounted display system up and down
slightly along the face of the user so that a best wearing
position can be obtained. It is our opinion that while
rotating the reflector adjusts the optical path relative to
one axis of the head mounted display system; the adjusting of
the whole head mounted display system by the user up and down
on the user’s nose cannot be understood to be part of an
“optical path adjusting system” as set forth in claim 1 on
appeal. The examiner is not at liberty to read a human being,
(i.e., the user) as a part of the system set forth in
appellants’ claim 1. See, for example, In re Bernhart, 417
F.2d 1395, 1399, 163 USPQ 611, 615 (CCPA 1969). Therefore, we
agree with appellants that Furness does not disclose a single
embodiment including an optical path adjusting system for
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007