Appeal No. 2000-0971
Application No. 08/642,224
sensors, taught by Donahue, would have suggested the use on eyeglasses or articles
worn on the head.
Appellants argue that the examiner’s position that Motosyuku teaches the control
element separated from the processor is in error. (See brief at page 5.) We agree with
appellants that Motosyuku teaches having the control element incorporated into the
housing of the processor and display. While the language of independent claim 3 does
not specifically state what the control element is "separate" from it is clear that the
control element is a distinct element from any other element for processing and display.
We find that Motosyuku does not teach or fairly suggest this separation, but Donahue
clearly teaches this claimed feature. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the examiner has not provided a "proper technical reason
or motivation to combine these references." (See brief at page 6.) We disagree with
appellants. From our review of the teachings of Motosyuku and Donahue, both teach
the use of a tilt sensor to interface with an input to display system. (See Motosyuku at
col. 2.) Specifically, Donahue provides a motivation stating:
The input device includes a sourceless orientation sensor which generates an
electrical signal representative of the physical orientation of the device, without it
being adjacent to any fixed reference object. The electrical orientation signal can
be used to position and otherwise control a cursor on a display screen, to
manipulate virtual objects in a virtual reality environment, to control the
presentation of an image on a display screen, to send orientation information to
storage, or to provide feedback for a robotic device.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007