Appeal No. 97-1142
Application 08/260,831
and in the self-evident advantages 3-D imaging (e.g., enhanced
realism) and digital video player technology (e.g., improved
image quality) provide, which the ordinarily skilled artisan
would have readily appreciated. In this regard, the artisan
would have viewed the proposed modification of Trumbull ‘256 as a
straightforward trade-off between the use of the relatively
inexpensive imaging technology of Trumbull ‘256 (column 1, lines
26-29) and the more sophisticated and expensive imaging
technology taught by Noble and Hayes.
As to claim 2, the housing means of Trumbull ‘256 encloses
the seats and the image means. See Figure 4.
In regard to claim 4, the use of a separate laser video disc
player to produce each image component of the 3-D image would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, it being noted that
Hayes, in effect, teaches that separate images for the left and
right eye are utilized to produce the 3-D effect.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Trumbull ‘256 in view of Noble and Hayes and
further in view of Trumbull ‘670. In view of the teaching of
Trumbull ‘670 at column 6, lines 32-37 of limiting the overall
height of the simulator system theater thereof to enable its
location within a building having a conventional ceiling height
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007