Appeal No. 2005-2766
Application No. 09/682,659
The examiner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to provide a means to deliberately distort at least one
image prior to display as suggested by Surati et al. to the
system of Craig to improve the performance of the display
(column 9, lines 23-25)” (answer, page 5), and that “since Craig
is a display system where an image at an off angle would be
distorted, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to deliberately distort that image of Craig, as taught
by Surati et al., to provide improved performance of the display
by providing a better final image to the viewer” (answer,
page 6). The examiner further argues that it is logical to apply
Surati’s technique to any image that is viewed or shown at an
angle that is not perpendicular to the screen or display angle,
including Craig’s stereoscopic display, because the same problem
of image distortion will occur (answer, page 6).
The test for obviousness of a proposed combination of
references is not whether the proposed combination is logical
but, rather, is whether the applied references would have fairly
suggested the proposed combination to one of ordinary skill in
the art. The examiner has not established that the applied
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007