Appeal No. 1999-2698
Application 08/560,108
out the claimed invention as “neither reference has to do with
presenting images of actual objects and images of moving
virtual objects in conjunction” (Appellant's emphasis).
Appellant then differentiates Sutherland from Bajura,
pointing out that Sutherland teaches “the use of an optical
see-through display with prestored virtual objects” which
appear to hang in space around the user, while Bajura
discloses “a video see-through display” (Appellant's
emphasis). Sutherland prestores wire frame line drawings and 10
has nothing to do with prestoring positions and geometric
features of real objects. Furthermore, Appellant notes that 11
although Sutherland teaches the use of a prestored virtual
object, it teaches its use in a stationary way with an
optical-see-through device, and one skilled in this art would
not think of using Sutherland's prestored virtual objects with
the video-see-through application of Bajura.
10Page 758, line 9; figures 8-9.
11Brief, pages 9 and 10.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007