Appeal No. 1999-1657
Application No. 08/877,781
We consider the two rejections separately.
Rejections over the admitted prior art (APA)
The examiner asserts, final rejection at page 4, that
Applicant's description of the related art,
including disclosures of Figs. 7, 10 and 13,
indicate that the prior art discloses the claimed
invention except for particular relationships of
spacing between resolvable image elements, an
observation point, and a limit view angle, that
obviously be related as claimed with a particular
choice of observation point and limit view angle,
the choice of which is unlimited as set out in the
claims. Additionally, as far as the relationships
relate to the intended use of the filter and display
system, such cannot serve as a basis of
patentability as is well set out in patent law.
Appellant counters, reply brief at page 4, that
As shown in Figure 7, the generated gaps between the
between the diffused pixels do not take into account
the vignetting effect as shown in Figure 8 used by
the present invention. Consequently, the
conventional systems modify the diffusion number (n)
until the gap between the diffused pixels (M) equals
0, i.e., all gaps between diffused pixels is
eliminated. (See page 15, lines 1-4).
We find that the examiner cannot extrapolate APA to mean
what appellant does not intend it to mean. In this case, the
gap between the pixels does not exist in APA as stated by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007