Appeal No. 1997-3823
Application No. 08/320,782
user to read at or above eye level without removing his
glasses or tilting his head back. The purpose of the
adjustable nosepiece (32) of Flader, to allow a user to read
at or above eye level, is not relevant to the display system
or Furness. Accordingly we see no reasonable teaching or
motivation for importing the adjustable nosepiece of Flader
into the head mounted display of Furness.
Appellants further argue that the examiner is apparently
employing improper hindsight analysis that uses appellants'
claims as an instruction manual to piece together disparate
teachings of the prior art (brief, page 15), because there is
nothing in Furness or Flader to suggest the combination of
their teachings. See In re Fritch 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In appellants' opinion,
Furness teaches positioning the mirror in the peripheral
field of view, while Flader teaches an adjustable nosepiece to
move the lenses out of the peripheral field of view and into
the user's main field of view. We agree with the appellants.
The combination of Flader and Furness could only be made using
improper hindsight reconstruction.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007