Appeal No. 1999-1657
Application No. 08/877,781
4, that
[A]pplicant's own disclosed prior art discloses all
of the features of the claimed invention except for
the spacings of the image pixels being at the limit
of resolution for a particular observation point.
The patent to Greenspan, particularly column 17,
line 49 through column 18 line 57, discloses
designing pixel images in an image display to be
spaced at the resolution limit of an observer. It
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to apply the teachings of Greenspan to
applicant's own disclosed prior art to provide pixel
images spaced at the resolution limit of an observer
because such would serve the same desired purpose in
the disclosed prior art as in the devices of
Greenspan to provide high resolution display images
at the limit of observer resolution.
We do not agree with appellant’s statement, brief at page
15, that “Greenspan is the same as the disclosed prior art
system discussed in the background of the present invention in
that optical filters 260, 270, 286 and 290 are used to
eliminate the gap interval,” because Greenspan, in columns 17
and 18, does
disclose a method of designing the optical magnifying system
in a manner that keeps )s (the claimed gap) from becoming 0.
However, we do agree with appellant, brief at page 15, that
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007