Appeal No. 2001-1795
Application 08/825,196
the cited references and that appellant can see no justification
for the examiner’s proposed combination. Appellant asserts that
the examiner is simply picking and choosing different structural
elements from unrelated prior art references [brief, pages 8-9].
The examiner responds that Vansaghi clearly teaches the feature
of a preset convergence angle as a function of working distance
[answer, page 16].
We will sustain the rejection of claims 10-14. We agree
with the examiner that Vansaghi teaches that the relationship
between convergence angles and working distances was well known
to the artisan. Thus, we find that it would have been obvious to
the artisan to have ocular support arms which define preset
convergence angles as a function of working distance as claimed.
Appellant’s argument that he finds no justification for the
examiner’s proposed combination of references is not persuasive
of error in the rejection. Appellant has offered no analysis of
why the proposed combination is not justified other than a bare
assertion. The examiner’s rejection explains why the references
have been combined in a sufficient manner to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. Appellant’s arguments fail to rebut
this rejection with any persuasive arguments.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007