Appeal No. 96-1709
Application 08/149,361
and Sakariassen discussed above. Therefore, this rejection of
claim 14 is also not sustained.
3. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6,
10-13, 15 and 17-19 as unpatentable
over the teachings of Shirochi,
Fujisawa and Nakayoshi.
This rejection is similar to the first rejection
discussed above except that Nakayoshi is now cited instead of
Sakariassen. The examiner cites Nakayoshi for the exact same
reason as Sakariassen, that is, as a teaching of a
stereoscopic image LCD for the left and right eyes of a
viewer. Since the examiner relies on Fujisawa for the same
reasons discussed above, and since the examiner’s reasons have
been found to be erroneous, we also do not sustain this
separate rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-13, 15 and 17-19.
The additional separate rejection of dependent claim 14 based
on this combination of references with Suntola added is
deficient for the same reasons already discussed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007