Appeal No. 2003-1832 Page 3
Application No. 09/222,230
(Paper No. 26) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 25) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 27) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellants’ invention is directed to improvements in image generators of the
type having a miniature display device, such as those used in head-mounted displays.
In particular, the appellants assert that their invention provides a head-mounted display
that overcomes the problems in the prior art displays by being lightweight and small, yet
providing high quality performance even for color video data at fast frame rates
(specification, pages 1 and 2). As recited in independent claims 1 and 32, the invention
comprises an illuminator which generates a source of light, a miniature reflective display
device, and a beamsplitter optically coupled to the display device to produce a virtual
image of the display. The beamsplitter is a reflective polarizer and comprises a film that
reflects light having a first polarization component and transmits light having a second
polarization component. The beamsplitter further comprises “an analyzer attached to
the beamsplitter” at an angle relative to the display which is substantially not equal to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007