Appeal No. 1997-0413
Application No. 08/231,570
reasons set forth in our earlier decision of August 23, 1996
in the parent application, Serial No. 07/767,178.
The examiner contends that the claimed recitation of “the
real image being of a size to require magnification to be
perceivable with the human eye” is not disclosed by applicants
because the recitation of “miniature virtual image
display...which incorporates an extremely small LED array,” at
page 10, lines 10-11 of the specification, “does not mean the
image can not be perceived by human eye” [supplemental answer-
page 3] because appellants did not specify the size of the
image on the chip. However, if a device array is placed on a
single chip, an operation clearly within the skill of an
artisan, it would appear to us that the real image would be
too small to be perceived by the human eye, as claimed.
As we said in our earlier decision, if the examiner had
trouble understanding the claim language in view of the
language employed in the specification, perhaps the rejection
should have been under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112. In any event, it is clear to us, from a review of the
instant disclosure as a whole, that what appellants intend is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007