Appeal No. 1998-0929
Application 08/469,770
floating image as it exists at a certain distance from the
hologram.
With respect to claims 70-74, appellant argues that
the numerous applications of these claims are not disclosed by
the prior art. As noted above, however, the holographic image
input of Dainippon is sent to a personal computer for control
of the personal computer. Since a personal computer is one of
the devices recited in these claims, Dainippon clearly meets
the invention as broadly recited in these claims.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection
of claims 30-34, 36, 38, 40-44, 46, 48, 50-52, 55, 57-60, 63
and 65-74 based on the teachings of Dainippon, Ward and the
admitted prior art.
With respect to the rejection of claims 53 and 61
using the additional teachings of Benton, and the rejection of
claims 35, 39, 45, 49, 54, 56, 62 and 64 using the additional
teachings of Haugen, appellant argues that neither Benton nor
Haugen overcomes the deficiencies of the basic combination
previously considered [brief, pages 44 and 45]. Since we have
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007