Appeal No. 1997-3823
Application No. 08/320,782
claims 52 and 57.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 52 and 57, and
claims 53-54 and 58-59 which depend therefrom.
We now consider the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Furness in view of Landis and Flader. Independent claim 62
requires a head mounted display system comprising a display,
optics for collimating light, at least one transparency, a
frame for supporting said display, optics and said at least
one transparency, and a removable nose piece, wherein the at
least one transparency is removably mounted on the frame and
the optics are removably mounted on the at least one
transparency. We again note the examiner’s position as set
forth above that the mirror or optics (120) of Furness is
removably mounted. As pointed out above, we agree with
appellants that Furness does not teach removably mounting the
mirror or optics (120) to the transparency (126). We also
again note that while Landis teaches a frame (16) and a
20
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007