Appeal No. 1998-0878
Application No. 08/322,749
adjusted to achieve focusing. In Suwa as well as in the
claimed invention, the image display means (liquid crystal
display) is located within the optical visual unit of the
head-mounted display apparatus. Thus, the claimed invention
recites independent movement of the display means and not the
optics associated with the display means. Thus, even if the
teachings of Suwa and Hosio could be combined in a logical
manner, the invention as recited in claim 10 still would not
result.
In summary, the examiner’s analysis of the teachings of
Suwa and Hosio is incorrect, and the proposed modification of
Suwa with the teachings of Hosio would defeat the purpose for
which Suwa was designed. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 2-4, 8-10, 12, 13, 18-21 and 24-27 which
stand or fall together as a single group.
Although claims 5, 11, 14, 15, 28 and 29 are argued
separately, these claims either depend from claim 10 or
contain the same recitations of claim 10 discussed above
(independent claim 28). Since the limitations of claim 10 are
also included in each of these claims, we do not sustain the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007