Appeal No. 1999-2413
Application No. 08/754,203
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In our opinion,
any suggestion to extend the disclosure of Eino to include a second
display unit for displaying two separate synthetic images, one of
which is a transformed version of the other, could only come from
Appellants’ own disclosure and not from the teachings of the Eino
reference. Accordingly, since we are of the opinion that the prior
art applied by the Examiner does not support the obviousness
rejection, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 42.
In summary, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of the appealed claims, we have sustained the rejection
of claims 3, 4, 6-16, 24, 25, 27-37, 41, 43, and 44, but have not
sustained the rejection of claim 42. Therefore, the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 3, 4, 6-16, 24, 25, 27-37, and 41-44 is
affirmed-in-part.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007