Appeal No. 1999-2337
Application 08/655,257
disclose a planar display means as recited in claims 1 and 2.
Furthermore, we find that Kuga does not disclose driving said
planar display as recited in
claims 17 and 18. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 and 18
as being anticipated by Kuga.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19 and 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kuga in view
of Cline. Appellants argue that none of the references
discloses a planar display device that produces a three-
dimensional image of a three-dimensional scene as recited in
independent claims 3 and 4 or the steps of driving a planar
display device to produce a three-dimensional image as recited
in independent claims 19 and 20. In response to this
argument, the Examiner argues on page 9 of the Answer that
Kuga clearly shows a planar display panel.
As we have shown above, we must properly construe the
scope of the claim limitation “planar display means” and the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007