Appeal No. 96-2744
Application 08/004,734
Rather than reiterate the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We turn first to the rejection of claims 6 and 46 under 35
U.S.C. 102(b).
Anticipation, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, requires that each
element of the claim in issue be found, either expressly
described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art
reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The examiner has applied Gery to the claimed invention by
calling the tip end 36 of the optical fibers a "voxel,"
indicating that the fiber tips take up some volume in space and,
therefore, constitute "discrete volumetric display" elements, as
claimed. Further, these fiber ends emit light in response to
stimulation by electromagnetic radiation, i.e., the light, which
is electromagnetic radiation, at the input end of the fiber is
output at the end tips 36. The display in Gery is clearly three-
dimensional.
Appellant contends that the fiber tip ends 36 in Gery are
not "discrete volumetric display" elements because the ends of
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007