Appeal No. 2003-0670
Application No. 09/119,891
the display device pixels, and then using this data in an
algorithm for determining which of the N views is to be carried,
as claimed.
Since neither Eichenlaub nor Fergason discloses or suggests
the aforementioned claim limitation, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as no prima facie
case of obviousness has been established.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1-11 under
either 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) or under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly,
the examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EK/RWK
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007