Appeal No. 1998-0929
Application 08/469,770
impermissible speculation, conjecture and hindsight; 2)
appellant argues that Dainippon has no teaching or suggestion
of controlling electronic devices from a holographic input
image; 3) appellant argues that Dainippon has no teaching as
to how or why a conventional control could or should be
replaced by a holographic display as claimed; and 4) appellant
argues that the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest
the actuation detector as claimed [brief, pages 16-25].
After a careful consideration of the record in this
case, we agree with the conclusion reached by the examiner.
Appellant’s arguments are not convincing. Dainippon is
clearly directed to the replacement of a touch panel input
with a holographic image input [translation, pages 2 and 3].
Dainippon also clearly teaches that the position of a user’s
finger within the holographic image is judged, and that this
information is inputted into a control device such as a
computer [id., pages 4 and 5]. Thus, Dainippon clearly
teaches the generation of some holographic image which is
“touched” by an operator, and the location of the touch is
sent to a computer as input data. The key question is whether
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007