Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,723
Upon a careful review of Peppers, we fail to find that
Peppers teaches "each of said plurality of said optical
correlation operation means detects a respective portion of
said optical pattern displayed by said input information
displaying means" as recited in Appellant's claim 1.
Furthermore, we note that claims 2 through 27 recite the above
limitations. Column 1, lines 6-13, the portion of Peppers
that the Examiner has directed our attention, is the stated
field of invention. However, this is not a teaching of a
portion of the optical image being displayed is only received
by the optical correlation operation means. Peppers teaches
in column 7, line 68, to column 8, line 9, that the input
image formed on the screen of the display 1 is received by the
first lens of the array 3 and is multiplied by the image
formation lenses 3a as shown in Figure 1. Peppers further
teaches that the optical pattern images 5a shown in Figures 3
through 5 are formed on imaginary image formation plane 5.
Thus, the entire optical pattern is outputted to each
correlation means 3a, 6a and 7a shown in Peppers' Figure 1.
Therefore, we find that Peppers fails to teach all of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007