Appeal No. 1996-3284
Application 08/154,864
We have reviewed the positions of the Examiner [answer,
pages 3, 5 and 6] and Appellant [brief, pages 10 to 14]. We
are convinced by the Appellant’s arguments. We find that
Ciongoli’s system operates on a totally different principle of
optics than the claimed invention.
For example, lens 15 in Ciongoli focuses the beam to form
images such as D’ or D”. We find no collimating of a beam
which will achieve the “rasterizing the viewing space with a
collimated beam” (claim 9, lines 3 to 4). Claim 9 is the
broadest claim on appeal. Since Ciongoli cannot meet claim 9,
it also cannot anticipate claims 5 to 8. Therefore, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 5 to 9 over
Ciongoli.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 3 to 9 have been rejected over Ciongoli in view of
Garcia and Bassett.
At the outset, we again note that we have sustained the
Section 112, second paragraph rejection of claims 3 and 4
above. We emphasize once again that claims 3 and 4 each
contains unclear language which renders the subject matter
thereof indefinite for the reasons stated supra under our
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007