Appeal No. 1997-3823
Application No. 08/320,782
allowing the optical path to be adjusted relative to at least
two axes of the head mounted display system.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1 and claims
2-5 which depend therefrom.
Next we turn to the examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Furness as applied
to claims 1-5 and further in view of Flader. Claim 6 requires
that the optical path adjusting system in claim 1 include a
nosepiece that is adjustably mounted relative to said frame.
Furness does not disclose an adjustable nosepiece. However,
Flader teaches an adjustable nosepiece (32) mounted to a frame
(12) of bifocal glasses to adjust the relative position of the
lower portions (28) of the lenses (26) relative to the eyes of
the user. As urged by appellants in the appeal brief on pages
14-15, Flader teaches a specific purpose for the adjustable
nosepiece (32) in column 1, lines 20-21. The adjustable
nosepiece (32) is to allow a user to adjust the position of
the lower portion (28) of the bifocal lenses (26) to allow a
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007