Appeal No. 1999-0597
Application 08/592,812
appellants argue that in Faris the same region of space is
viewable in both modes of operation [brief, pages 4-8].
Appellants and the examiner disagree as to what is
disclosed to the artisan by Figures 5b and 5c of Faris.
Figure 5c shows the autostereoscopic mode of Faris and Figure
5b shows the stereoscopic mode of Faris. It is the examiner’s
position that a portion of the image can be viewed in Figure
5b in a portion of space whereas the same portion of the image
in Figure 5c cannot be viewed. Thus, according to the
examiner, the region of space where the three dimensional
image is viewable in the stereoscopic mode of Faris extends
past the region of space where the three dimensional image is
viewable in the autostereoscopic mode of Faris [answer, pages
4-5]. Appellants respond that the illumination system in
Faris illuminates the same region of space for both modes of
operation [reply brief].
The appropriate question to consider is what is meant
by illuminating a first and second region of space as recited
in claim 1. The examiner finds that a location where an image
can be seen in Faris means that that location has been
illuminated. Appellants argue that a region of space which
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007