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 11Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007