Appeal No. 2006-0909 Page 12
Application No. 09/282,320
2. Transparent Area
The examiner finds, "Janow clearly teaches the advantageous [sic] of arranging
of a transparent material in front of the camera in order to make the existence of hole
being less apparent to a viewer (e.g. col. 5 lines 42-55), thereby making it less unsightly
and making the displayed image more uniform. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 16.)
The appellants allege, "the suggested desirability of modifying a mirror based on a
disclosure of a lenticular structure projection screen in Janow finds absolutely no
disclosure, teaching, or motivation from the combination of references." (Appeal Br.
at 9.)
a. Claim Construction
Claim 18 further recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a two-way
transparent center area . . . ." Giving the representative claim its broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations merely require a transparent area.
b. Obviousness Determination
ll. 65-66), wherein the mounting necessarily occurs at some angle, moreover, we find
that the reference teaches arranging the movable mirror at some angle to the camera.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007