Appeal No. 97-1142
Application 08/260,831
receiving signals from storage medium 78 for moving the platform
in correspondence with the projected image. Trumbull ‘256 does
not disclose that the video image means is a 3-D video image
means, nor that the video image means included is a digital video
player.
Noble is cited as evidence that 3-D video image producing
means were known in the art at the time of appellants’ invention.
In this regard, Noble teaches that 3-D video image means may
produce an image that is viewable on a film projection screen
(column 3, lines 17-20). Hayes is cited as evidence that digital
image producing means in the form of laser video disc players
were known in the art at the time of appellants’ invention.
Applying the test for obviousness set forth in In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981), which is what
the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill to provide the Trumbull ‘256 apparatus with
video image means that produce a 3-D image, and to utilize a
laser (i.e., digital) video disc player in so doing, in view of
the teachings of Noble and Hayes. Suggestion for the above
modifications is found in the recognition by Trumbull ‘256 at
column 6, lines 63-65 that other imaging systems may be utilized,
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007