Appeal No. 1999-0597
Application 08/592,812
examiner also finds that all the elements of Faris cooperate
to provide a working organization of elements that reduce
cross-talk in both modes of operation [answer, page 6].
Appellants respond that the control mechanism 20 of Faris does
not meet the definition of “viewing aid” as set forth in the
specification [reply brief].
A viewing aid is a device or structure which is used
or worn by an observer and may include spectacles. It is the
examiner’s position that the display control mechanism of
Faris is broadly used by an observer in the autostereoscopic
mode and that in addition to being a viewing aid, the
mechanism 20 also reduces cross-talk by providing an
appropriate autostereoscopic display. We agree with the
examiner that the invention as broadly recited in claim 23 is
fully met by the system disclosed by Faris. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claims 23-26 as anticipated by the
disclosure of Faris.
We now consider the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Faris and Travis. The examiner indicates why he finds
obviousness on pages 5-6 of the final rejection. Appellants
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007