Appeal No. 2002-1717 Page 11
Application No. 09/089,153
the art to design a display system that may be folded
up to be inconspicuous to the driver when not wanted.
Appellant responds (brief, page 9) that “there is no teaching or
suggestion of the proposed combination of flat panel display and
a spring and hinge system.”
We find that Schofield teaches the use of a flat panel
display (col. 6, lines 46-48) that “may be mounted/attached to
the dashboard, facia or header, or to the windshield at a
position conventionally occupied by an interior rearview mirror”
(col. 6, lines 46-48). Schofield also teaches that “[d]isplay 20
is of a size to be as natural as possible to the driver” (col. 6,
lines 22-23) and that “display 20 is preferably positioned within
the driver’s physiological field of view without obstructing the
view through the windshield” (col. 6, lines 29-32).
From the disclosure of Schofield, we agree with appellant’s
statement (brief, page 9) that the reference includes “no
teaching or suggestion of the proposed combination of flat panel
display and a spring and hinge system.” We find that the prior
art fails to disclose the claimed limitation that the “display
monitor comprises a flat panel display mounted on a hinge and
spring system, that is capable of being folded up and away when
not in use.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007