Appeal No. 2000-1935
Application 08/460,937
OPINION
We reverse.
According to the examiner's statement of the rejection at
the second and third pages of the answer, the examiner only
relies upon Kaufman as a basis for the claimed central projection
method, asserted to be shown in Figure 6A of this reference. The
examiner recognizes that this reference does not explicitly
disclose the projection subject image being located between the
view point and the plane of projection. The examiner, in our
judgment as well as according to the arguments presented at pages
9-15 of the principal brief on appeal, argues that Foley teaches
this disputed feature.
The focus of this dispute is upon the recited feature, set
forth in representative independent claim 1 and set forth in the
same measure in independent claims 6, 13 and 14 as well, that the
projection image is located between the view point and the
projection plane. Figure 6A of Kaufman shows the projection
screen located between the view point and the object of interest.
This is also shown in Figure 6E. This approach would appear to
us to be consistently used throughout the teachings and showings
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007