Appeal No. 96-0882
Application No. 07/885,217
Gale is directed to using a lenticular face plate in the
production of high resolution patterns such as identical pixels
in a liquid crystal display. Column 1, lines 1-22. The patterns
are not described as, nor are they, suitable for display through
a lenticular face plate or as depth images.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection.
Anticipation by Saito
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Saito. Each recited method includes a step of
foreshortening a dimension (claim 13) or reducing a “diameter”
(claim 12) of a writing dot to limit visible dot overlap. A
writing dot is a small spot of light scanned over a recording
media to produce pixels on the media.
Although the preamble of each claim recites a method of
printing a depth image, appellants do not rely on the preambles
to distinguish these claims from Saito or to distinguish claims
13 and 14 from Umeda.
The scope of claim 12 will be addressed first. The broadest
reasonable interpretation of “diameter” is “dimension.” See The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New College
Edition 364 (1975 ed.), which gives as one of the definitions of
“diameter”: “Loosely, the thickness or width of anything.” This
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007