Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
can broadly be considered a "processor means" at this point in
the claim. In particular, there is no recitation that the
processor "computes" anything. The term "separately
controllable" is not defined and is broadly met by the fact
that the video drivers operate independently.
Appellants argue that "the function of the video drivers
24A-24D [in Caine] is simply to read data from memories
22A-22D which all receive data from the same source (Host
Computer 10) and pass the sampled data to a display
screen" (Br9). This is true, but appellants do not state what
language of the claim requires the "processor means" to do
more.
Claim 1 further recites "each processor means further
including a first input connected to the network for receiving
network communication and a second input connected to at least
one touch sensitive screen for receiving input command signals
corresponding to the user touch input." Again, no function is
recited for the "processor means" that would define over the
video driver of Caine. Two inputs are recited. The input to
the video drivers from buses 44 in Caine are inputs "for
receiving network communication." However, we disagree with
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007