Appeal No. 1997-3823
Application No. 08/320,782
rejection of dependent claims 26-28 since the appellants have
not challenged the rejection of said claims with any
reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand
or fall with parent claim 25 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Now we look at the examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 29 and 33 and claims 30-32, 34 and 37-38 which depend
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Furness. Independent claims 29 and 33 require a head mounted
display system including a display, a frame, and a “means for
collimating light to project an enlarged image” (claim 29) or
a “reflector for projecting an enlarged image” (claim 33),
wherein the “means for collimating light” and the “reflector”
are removably mounted on said frame independently of said
display. We note the examiner’s position that the mirror
(120) of Furness (Figure 19) is mounted on a shaft to allow
for pivoting movement and includes a set screw (130) for
firmly maintaining the position of the mirror (120) after it
has been adjusted to accommodate a given user, see Col. 9,
lines 13-18. Appellants argue that Furness does not teach the
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007