Appeal No. 1997-3823
Application No. 08/320,782
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 6.
Next we look to the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 and
claims 11, 14-16 and 20 which depend therefrom under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Furness in view of Flader.
We are interpreting the recitations in claim 7, lines 7-11, “a
nose piece movably mounted relative to said frame member . . .
to adjust an optical path defined by the relative position[s]
of the display, reflector and the user’s eye” to be a nose
piece movably mounted relative to said frame member . . . to
adjust the position of the reflector and/or the display to
change the optical path relative to the eye of the user. As
set forth by the examiner, Furness does not disclose an
adjustable nosepiece. 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 to allow the user to
read at or above eye level. As set forth above, the purpose
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007