Appeal No. 2003-0670
Application No. 09/119,891
The examiner relies on Eichenlaub for teaching the claimed
subject matter but for a user input device for controlling,
selecting or inputting a specifying parameter for the LCD, as
specified in claims 8 and 9 (see pages 5-6 of the answer). From
the examiner’s statement of the rejection, while Fergason is
applied in combination with Eichenlaub against all of the claims,
it would appear that Fergason is employed only against claims 8
and 9, which would leave one to believe that the examiner
believes that Eichenlaub teaches all of the limitations of at
least independent claims 1, 4 and 9.
Since the examiner failed to even address the limitation of
obtaining data defining at least the lenticular screen lenticule
pitch, the number of views N, and the lenticular screen position
relative to the display device pixels and applying the data to an
algorithm, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
flawed on its face as no prima facie case of obviousness has been
shown by the examiner.
In any event, the examiner responds to appellant’s argument
in this regard, at pages 7-8 of the answer. Specifically, the
examiner contends that Eichenlaub discloses a screen display
(Figure 8) comprising a lenticular screen (identifying 122 in
Figure 8), including lenticules pitch, views N. L. R. and L, R (1
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007