Appeal No. 1998-0878
Application No. 08/322,749
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made
by appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 10, the
examiner finds that Suwa teaches all the features of this
claim except for the focusing means for moving each image
display means in a vertical direction relative to the
respective optical visual unit. The examiner cites Hosio as
teaching a vertical adjustment of the optics to achieve
focusing of the image. The examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to add Hosio’s vertical
focusing arrangement to the Suwa display apparatus [answer,
pages 4-5].
Appellants argue that the image display means of Suwa are
not independently movable with respect to the optical visual
units, and appellants assert that there would be no motivation
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007