Appeal No. 2000-0971
Application No. 08/642,224
of who would be the demographic group, what environment, etc. would be used to
evaluate "normal." Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue that
the devices in Donahue as in Russell are not designed to be worn for ornamentation.
(See brief at pages 4-5.) We find no support in the language of claim 3 for this
argument. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that Donahue does not teach "attaching the unit to a
conventional glove." (See brief at page 5.) Again, we find no support in the language
of method claim 3 for this argument. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Additionally, appellants argue that the goggles of Donahue are not "eyeglasses which
are a prosthetic that corrects the vision of the wearer for normal functions, but goggles
used as a computer output device." We find no support in the language of independent
claim 3 or dependent claim 24 for this argument. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive.
We find that Donahue is a basic teaching of incorporating a sensor or control
device into some article to be worn or attached to some portion of the body. (See
Donahue at col. 7, lines 28-31 and lines 43-44.) Donahue clearly teaches and fairly
suggests the placement of the control sensor in a wide range of locations on the body
and on articles worn on the body. Appellants argue that the goggles are not
eyeglasses, per se. We agree with appellants, but find that the various placements of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007