Appeal No. 1999-2337
Application 08/655,257
Trademark Office to make specific findings on a suggestion to
combine prior art references. In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994,
1000-01, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617-19 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
From the arguments of the Examiner, it appears that the
Examiner is arguing that Kuga does suggest to use the DeMond
display for each of the three panels shown in figure 1 of the
Kuga system. However, this does not answer the question of
how Kuga or DeMond would have suggested transforming the
three-dimensional display as taught by Kuga into a planar
display as claimed by the Appellants. Upon our review of Kuga
and DeMond, we fail to find any reason or suggestion for
making this modification.
Claims 21, 24, 27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being patentable over Kuga in view of Karras.
Appellants argue on pages 9 and 10 of the Reply Brief that
none of the cited references discloses or suggests the use of
an “orthogonal expansion” to drive signals used to drive a
display producing a three-dimensional image as recited in each
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007