Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
The claims stand or fall together (Br4). Claim 1 is
analyzed as representative.
Appellants' two main arguments are that: (1) the video
drivers in Caine are not equivalent to the claimed "separately
controllable processor means" (Br8-10); and (2) the touch-
sensitive device in Norwood does not suggest multiple display
units, each display unit having an associated touch-sensitive
screen and processor means (Br10-12). Although not all of the
arguments made in support of these arguments are supported by
specific claim limitations, we nevertheless conclude that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. We review the rejection by analyzing the
limitations of claim 1.
The first paragraph of claim 1 recites "a plurality of
basic display units each comprising separately controllable
processor means having an output connected to at least one
display." No function is recited for the "processor means";
thus, the term is not in means-plus-function format under
35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph despite the use of the term
"means." A "processor" broadly encompasses a device for
reading out video information from a memory and a video driver
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007