Appeal No. 1997-3301
Application No. 08/159,879
scene, which can be subtracted from the signal
representing the actual scene.
However, the chopper disclosed in Trotta uses reflective
tubes rather than diffractive lenses as in the claimed
invention. See Answer, p. 7 ("The diffusion of the light is
accomplished by gluing tubes to each other."); Brief, p. 13
(Trotta "fails to teach or even suggest the use of diffractive
lens patterns or the manner of making the chopper as
claimed.").
The examiner concludes (Answer, p. 8):
It would have been obvious to use the technique for
making a mold disclosed by Isono et al. ‘638 in the
process for making a stamper of the fresnel
diffusion screens of Ohtaka et al. ‘123, based upon
its improvements over the prior art methods, the
teaching within Ohtaka et al. ‘123 to making
stamping masters and the teaching within Suzuki et
al. ‘265 that the mass production of fresnel based
diffusion screens is known in the art to make the
final articles less expensive to produce and to
substitute the resulting fresnel based diffusion
screen for the diffuser element composed of
metallized glass tubes used by Trotta et al. ‘591,
based upon their having a similar washing out effect
on the image as taught by Trotta et al. ‘591 and the
less complicated and expensive manufacturing process
for the diffusion element which also would be more
easily attached to the frame.
Appellants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion
to combine the references in the manner suggested by the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007