Appeal No. 2005-1045
Application No. 09/225,574
superimposed onto an image of the user engaged in the activity;
and
a first display device displaying the composite video signal
to the user in a manner that allows the user to perform the
activity while viewing the displayed signal.
39. The system of claim 38, wherein the first display device
includes a head-mounted display.
THE REFERENCES
Mann 5,184,295 Feb. 2, 1993
Brostedt WO 98/25250 Jun. 11, 1998
(PCT application)
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 38, 40-42, 46-
48, 50, 51 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Mann, and claims 39, 43-45, 49,1 52 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Mann in view of Brostedt.
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
The appellants state that the claims stand or fall in two
groups: 1) claims 38, 40-42, 46-48, 50, 51 and 54, and
2) claims 39, 43-45, 49,2 52 and 53. We therefore limit our
1
1 Claim 49 is omitted from the statement of the rejection.
The similarity of claim 49 to claim 39, which is included in the
rejection, indicates that this omission was inadvertent.
2 The appellants apparently inadvertently omit claim 49 from
the grouping of claims. We include claim 49 in the group in
(continued...)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007