Appeal No. 1999-0597
Application 08/592,812
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing
the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
Claims 1-4, 10, 11, 19 and 20 stand or fall together
as a single group [brief, page 4], and we will consider the
rejection with respect to independent claim 1 as
representative of all the claims of this group. With respect
to claim 1, the examiner has found clear anticipation based on
the disclosure of Faris. Appellants argue that the examiner
has misconstrued the meaning of the claim language.
Specifically, appellants argue that the examiner has
interpreted the claimed “regions of space” to be at the
imaging system instead of where the three dimensional image is
viewable. Appellants further argue that the illumination
system, not the imaging system, defines the region of space in
which three dimensional images are viewable. Finally,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007