I took time to read the patent for this. First, it is not holographic. There are no diffractive elements. It is, however auto-stereoscopic, which means that it does not require special glasses to see the 3D image. I don't think the inventor really knows what holographic really means.
Another point, and the patent insists on this, is the use of coherent light. This device does not require coherent light. In fact, it would display better images with incoherent light (less speckling).
The rest of the claims seem reasonable, though the device is pretty primitive. Think Lytro camera in reverse. It's amazing what the patent office will grant these days.
I took time to read the patent. The invention is not actually holographic (I'm not sure if the inventor knows what that means.); it has no diffractive elements. But, is is auto-stereoscopic, meaning you don't need special glasses to view its 3D images. The display uses a microlens array, think Lytro camera in reverse. It's a bit primitive, actually. The user interaction is done through a number of sensors that detect collisions with and gestures around the displayed object(s).
Comments
Another point, and the patent insists on this, is the use of coherent light. This device does not require coherent light. In fact, it would display better images with incoherent light (less speckling).
The rest of the claims seem reasonable, though the device is pretty primitive. Think Lytro camera in reverse. It's amazing what the patent office will grant these days.
I took time to read the patent. The invention is not actually holographic (I'm not sure if the inventor knows what that means.); it has no diffractive elements. But, is is auto-stereoscopic, meaning you don't need special glasses to view its 3D images. The display uses a microlens array, think Lytro camera in reverse. It's a bit primitive, actually. The user interaction is done through a number of sensors that detect collisions with and gestures around the displayed object(s).