Appeal No. 2003-0670
Application No. 09/119,891
and 8 of Figure 10C), which is considered to be a “number of
views N.” The examiner explains that the screen 122 “obviously
is driven by the line drivers (154 of fig. 9), so the position of
the lenticular screen obviously is relative to the display (fig.
8). In view of the discussion, Eichenlaub shows the step of
obtaining data defining at least the lenticular screen lenticules
pitch, the number of views N, and the lenticular screen position
relative to the display device pixels (col. 41, lines 45-67)”
(answer-pages 7-8).
First, we note that it is difficult to confirm what the
examiner is alleging since there is no “col. 41” in Eichenlaub.
Assuming that the examiner made a transposing error, and the
examiner really meant to reference column 14, this column ends at
line 58, so there is no “lines 45-67.”
In any event, we agree with appellant that even if,
arguendo, Eichenlaub teaches what the examiner alleges regarding
a lenticular screen including lenticules pitch and the driving of
a screen by line drivers, this is a far cry from teaching the
claimed method of gathering, or obtaining, data defining the
lenticular screen lenticule pitch (the examiner seems only to be
implying that a “pitch” exists in the screen of Eichenlaub), the
number of views N, and the lenticular screen position relative to
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007