Appeal No. 1999-1657
Application No. 08/877,781
appellant to be his admitted prior art.
As to the intended use argument by the examiner,
appellant argues, brief at page 10, that
[T]hese relationships [gap between pixels and the
limit view angle] define the heart of the inventive
subject matter as recited in the claims. In
particular, independent claims 1 and 7 recite that
the width of the generated gap interval corresponds
to predetermined recognizable limit view angle. . .
. Since these relationships are not mere intended
use but an integral feature of the present
invention, these relationships indeed give
patentable weight to the claims [and] therefore
should be considered.
We are persuaded by appellant’s argument, and as a
result, we find that the examiner is unjustified in holding
that the recited limitation is “mere intended use” and has no
patentable
weight. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
1 to 3, 5, 7 to 9, 11, 13 and 17 over APA.
Rejection over the APA and Greenspan
Claims 1 to 3, 5, 7 to 9, 11, and 13 to 17 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view
of Greenspan. The examiner asserts, final rejection at page
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007