Appeal No. 98-2805
Application 08/663,849
the “means” clauses of appellants’ claims 1 and 9 on appeal
are properly viewed from the perspective of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph, we find nothing in the portion of
Hattori relied upon by the examiner (i.e., col. 5, lines 14-
49) which relates at all to a second viewpoint and means for
designating and displaying a state of celestial bodies from
said second viewpoint, as is required in the claims on appeal.
The plurality of projection apparatus in Hattori at any given
time merely provides a composite projected image on the dome
of a planetarium that is representative of a single viewpoint
(i.e., the inputted time, date and viewer coordinates).
Based on the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 through 12 and 14
through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Hattori.
With regard to the examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Hattori, we observe
that our determination above with regard to independent claim
1 likewise disposes of this rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007