Appeal No. 96-2744
Application 08/004,734
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 6
and 46 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
We now turn to the rejection of the remainder of the claims
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
We will not sustain the rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C. 103.
Each of the independent claims, with the exception of claim
50, requires a "voxel" or "volumetric discrete voxels," or some
similar recitation. The rejections of the claims all rely on
Gery for the teaching of such volumetric discrete voxels.
However, as we indicated supra, such voxels are not taught or
suggested by Gery. While the other references are applied for
various other reasons, regarding other claim limitations, we have
reviewed these references and find that none of them provides for
the deficiency of Gery in this regard. Accordingly, the claimed
subject matter would not have been obvious within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. 103.
There is a different issue with regard to independent claim
50 and the claims dependent therefrom because claim 50 does not
require a voxel, or volumetric discrete display elements.
Rather, it calls for a three-dimensional array of normally
substantially transparent optical display elements which read on
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007