Appeal No. 2005-2766
Application No. 09/682,659
references themselves would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, applying Surati’s pixel correction
function to a stereoscopic display to distort at least one of the
stereoscopic display’s images to improve the stereoscopic match
between the images, counteract distortion caused by a viewer’s
perspective relative to a distorted image, or to counteract image
mismatch caused by a viewing device. The examiner’s argument
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by the
applied references to do so because in either display an off
angle image would be distorted (answer, page 6) is not supported
by evidence. The examiner’s mere speculation to that effect is
not sufficient for establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968); In re
Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690, 133 USPQ 360, 364 (CCPA 1962).
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007