Appeal No. 2001-0050
Application No. 08/753,883
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to each of independent claims 1-3, all of the
appealed claims, the Examiner attempts to read the various
limitations on the disclosure of Nishikawa. In particular, the
Examiner points (Answer, pages 3 and 4) to the stereoscopic video
display system illustrated in Figures 3, 4A, and 4B of Nishikawa
and the accompanying description at column 4, lines 16-28.
After reviewing the Nishikawa reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s position
as stated in the Briefs. We find to be particularly persuasive
Appellant’s argument related to the claimed limitation of “double-
scanning means for repeatedly scanning twice each line of said left
and right image signals,...”, a feature present in each of claims
1-3. We agree with Appellant’s contention (Brief, pages 5 and 6;
Reply Brief, pages 1 and 2) that, while Nishikawa describes a
frequency doubling and multiplexing procedure similar to that
claimed by Appellant, there is no disclosure in Nishikawa that the
frequency doubling operation is performed by double-scanning as
claimed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007