Appeal No. 1997-3823
Application No. 08/320,782
frame (29) and to be located between the transparency (30) and
the user’s face, wherein the recess is capable of receiving
lenses and the entire frame of glasses worn by the user,
including an upper edge of a frame of the glasses.
Accordingly we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In reaching our conclusion,
we have carefully reviewed the complete disclosure of Furness
and we find that the subject matter set forth in claim 25
lacks novelty with regard to the head mounted displace system
shown in Figures 3-4 and 7-9 of Furness. Figures 3-4 and 7-9
clearly show a “recess” large enough for receiving the
entirety of a frame of a pair of glasses. Given this teaching
in Furness, we sustain the rejection of claim 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215
USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1089,
197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978), In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007