Appeal No. 2001-1208
Application No. 09/057,585
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2 through 6 and
28 is sustained because appellant has chosen (brief, page 4) to
let these claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Turning next to the anticipation rejection of claim 7, the
examiner indicated (final rejection, page 1) that the limitations
of claim 7 read on either one of the two modulator systems 5a or
5b. We agree with the appellant’s argument (brief, page 8) that
a single light modulator will project less lumens to the screen,
but the examiner has correctly concluded that the limitations of
claim 7, which includes those of claim 1, read entirely on either
one of the two modulators 5a or 5b. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) rejection of claim 7 is sustained because “all” of the
light from either the light source 10a or 10b will impinge upon
“only one image forming unit” in modulator 5a or 5b (brief,
page 9).
Turning lastly to the obviousness rejection of claim 8, the
examiner has reached the conclusion (answer, page 6) that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
omit wedge prism 16 from the optical structure of Burstyn
(Figure 1) since light will still travel in a straight line to
right angle prism 14 as a result of the straight-line travel of
light through the prism 16. Appellant argues (brief, pages 10
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007