Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
Claims 10-12, 19-21, and 24 -- Hanson and Moss
Claims 10-12 recite the details of the camera and display
optics shown in appellants' figures 3-5. The examiner finds
that Moss teaches the claimed arrangement and concludes (Paper
No. 8, page 7; EA8): "since the internal structure or [sic,
of] the display apparatus and optical system [of Hanson] were
not specifically disclosed, it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art to utilize the teachings of Burbo [sic,
Moss] to implement the conventional and well known internal
structure of the display apparatus and optical system to
provide a display for common stereoscopic viewing." We[2]
agree with this reasoning.
Appellants state (Br27):
While Appellants agree with the Examiner's statement
of the disclosure of Moss in Paper 8, Appellants submit
it was error for the Examiner to hold that the combined
elements recited in Claims 10-12 as dependent on Claim 1
are obvious over the combined references of Hanson and
Moss. Appellants have shown Claim 1 to be unobvious in
The use of the term "stereoscopic" appears erroneous.2
"Stereoscopic" implies combining two different pictures of the
same scene from slightly different points to produce a
three-dimensional effect. Since Moss apparently uses images
from a single object source, it cannot produce a stereoscopic
effect. The correct word was probably "binocular," which is
widely used in Moss. This misstatement does not affect the
rejection.
- 24 -
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007