Appeal No. 1999-0349
Application 08/621,379
L’Her considered with Hashimoto do not suggest the adhesive
layer or its specific location, i.e., between the
polarization-direction changing film and the second glass
plate, because the polarization-direction changing film of
Hashimoto could be kept in place by the intermediate film.
With respect to Wood, the examiner asserts (answer, pages
4 and 5) that it would have been obvious to have used the
reflecting film 78 of Wood in the windshield of Hashimoto.
The appellants assert (brief, page 9) that Hashimoto teaches
away from the use of any reflection film. We disagree. The
appellants are correct that Hashimoto discloses problems
associated with the use of a reflection film (col. 1, lines
18-28). However, Hashimoto, in the discussion of the prior
art, also discusses (col. 1, lines 34-37) the problems
associated with not using a reflection film. In addition,
Hashimoto teaches (col. 9, lines 23-25) that “[t]he optical
rotary film may be used with a conventional reflective film in
a head-up display system according to the present invention.”
We agree with the examiner that Wood uses a reflecting film
78, in a head-up display for an automobile. However, the
reflection film of Wood is not used in conjunction with a
Page 8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007