Appeal No. 2006-3033
Application No. 10/748,992
device 12 to sense the orientation of the viewer and/or display
device 12. For example, assume the three dimensional display
image 14 is a cube and the display device 12 is a hand held
display device. Also assume the viewer is viewing a front side of
the cube. If the viewer desires to view the left side of the cube,
she may simply rotate the hand held display device (e.g., to the
right) to view the left side of the cube. She may also turn her
head (e.g., to the right and/or shift her head to the left), as if
the cube were physically in front of her and she positioned
herself to look at the left side [emphasis added].
Therefore, we find that Manchester explicitly teaches an orientation
component that automatically orients display objects rendered by the display
based at least in part upon a user perspective, as claimed [claim 1].
Accordingly, because Manchester teaches all that is claimed, we will sustain
the examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 as being anticipated by
Manchester. With respect to independent claim 16, we note that appellant
merely argues: “independent claim 16 recites system features in accordance
with the subject innovation” [brief, page 5]. Therefore, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 16 as being anticipated by Manchester for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to representative claim 1. We further
note that appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 2 and 5-7. See
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we will sustain the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007