The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte GUENTER ABERSFELDER, HELMUT GRANTZ, THORSTEINN
HALLDORSSON, HORST SCHMIDT-BISCHOFFSHAUSEN, STEFAN UHL, and
HEINRICH ALEXANDER EBERL
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1849
Application No. 09/116,710
____________
HEARD: April 16, 2003
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, LEVY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner's final rejection of claims 2-13, which are all of the
claims pending in this application. Claim 1 has been canceled.
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to the use of a holographic
video screen as a display surface for information systems. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 2, which is reproduced as follows:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007