Ex Parte VAN BERKEL - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2003-0670                                                        
          Application No. 09/119,891                                                  


               Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:           
               1.  A method for controlling pixel addressing of a pixel               
          display device to drive the display device as an N-view                     
          autostereoscopic display when a lenticular screen is overlaid and           
          image pixel data for N discrete views to be interlaced is                   
          provided, the method comprising the steps:                                  
               obtaining data defining at least the lenticular screen                 
          lenticule pitch, the number of views N, and the lenticular screen           
          position relative to the display device pixels;                             
               applying a predetermined algorithm to derive, from the                 
          obtained data and for each display pixel, which of the N views is           
          to be carried; and                                                          
               for each display pixel, extracting the corresponding pixel             
          data for the assigned view from the image pixel data provided.              

               The examiner relies on the following references:                       
          Wood                       6,023,263                 Feb. 8, 2000           
                         (filed Jun. 5, 1997)                                         
          Eichenlaub                 6,157,424                 Dec. 5, 2000           
                         (filed Mar. 30, 1998)                                        
          Fergason                   6,184,969                 Feb. 6, 2001           
                         (102(e) date: Apr. 25, 1997)                                 

               Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as                 
          anticipated by Wood.                                                        
               Claims 1-11 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as            
          unpatentable over Eichenlaub and Fergason.                                  
               Reference is made to the briefs (principal and supplemental)           
          and answer for the respective positions of appellant and the                
          examiner.                                                                   

                                         -2–                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007