Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
Norwood 5,063,600 November 5, 1991
Brody 5,079,636 January 7, 1992
(filed February 23, 1990)
Row et al. (Row) 5,163,131 November 10, 1992
(filed September 8, 1989)
Caine 5,361,078 November 1, 1994
(filed November 9, 1990)
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 14-16, 18-21, 24, and 27 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Brody, Caine, and Norwood. The examiner finds that Brody
discloses a display device comprising a plurality of basic
display units, but recognizes (Examiner's Answer, page 4) that
Brody does not disclose a "separately controllable processor
means" for each "basic display unit" as recited in claim 1.
The examiner finds that "Caine discloses each display has
[its] own processor or driver for receiving data from
different source channels 22A-22D and for driving each display
unit in parallel" (Examiner's Answer, page 8) and, thus,
considers the video driver for each display equivalent to the
claimed "separately controllable processor means." The
examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brody with the
features of [an] independent driver for each screen as taught
by Caine so as to provide an independent control for each
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007