Appeal No. 2003-0670
Application No. 09/119,891
In order to sustain a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e),
the reference must clearly disclose each and every element of the
claimed invention, without resorting to speculation. Now, it may
be that Wood somehow obtains 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,
and uses such data in a predetermined algorithm in order to
determine which of the N views is to be carried, but we find no
clear teaching of this, and the examiner’s rationale, relying on
bits and pieces of Wood, disclosing rendering techniques and
providing different images, to provide for this specific claim
limitation, amounts to nothing more than sheer speculation in our
view. There is nothing in Wood clearly teaching or suggesting
the gathering of the claimed data and the application of this
specific data to a predetermined algorithm for determining which
of N views to carry.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We also will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 for similar reasons. That is, the aforementioned
claim limitations are not found in the applied references.
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007