Appeal No. 2002-1849 Page 5
Application No. 09/116,710
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We consider first the rejection of claim 2 based on the
teachings of Brown considered with Abileah and Branca. The
examiner's position (answer, page 4) is that Brown is silent as
to the coloration of a surface of the holographic screen in
ambient light being black, gray, or a dark color. To overcome
this deficiency in Brown, the examiner turns to figure 4 and col.
9, lines 10-35 of Abileah for a teaching of a holographic display
that appears as one of black, gray, and a dark color in ambient
light (col. 9, lines 10-35). The examiner asserts (answer, page
5) that "the darken[ed] display is considered [to be] a dark
color in the off state." The examiner adds (id.) that:
It is further noted that although the combination of
Brown and Abileah et al discloses performing
holographic image generation on a display, it is silent
about using the holographic screen wherein a property
of a surface of the holographic screen is that it has
an intrinsic coloration which is one of black, gray and
a dark color in ambient light as specified in claims
2-5 and 8-10.
To overcome this deficiency of Brown and Abileah, the examiner
turns to Branca for a teaching of a property of a holographic
screen that has an intrinsic coloration which is one of black,
gray and a dark color in ambient light.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007