Appeal No. 1998-0929
Application 08/469,770
With respect to claims 36, 46, 58 and 66 which are
grouped together, appellant argues that the rejection does not
address the output interface of representative claim 36. The
personal computer 10 of Dainippon, however, clearly has an
output interface including a video display device as broadly
recited in claim 36 [note Figure 4]. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claims 36, 46, 58 and 66.
With respect to claims 38 and 48, appellant argues
that there is no mention of acoustic waves in the references.
We agree with the examiner, however, that these claims are met
by prior art teaching either acoustic waves or electromagnetic
waves, and that the Dainippon actuation detector clearly uses
electromagnetic waves (light) for this purpose.
With respect to claims 52 and 60, appellant argues
that claim 52 recites not merely a transmission hologram but a
combined innovative free-floating holographic control
arrangement not shown in the applied references [brief, page
36]. Although there is nothing in claim 52 which limits the
image to a free-floating image, we agree with the examiner
that the holographic image of Dainippon is clearly a free-
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007