Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
the examiner's implicit conclusion that it would have been
obvious to provide an input to the individual video drivers to
receive input from touch-sensitive screens over the displays
as shown in Norwood. The video drivers in Caine only read
video information out of the memory and do not have the
capability to perform computations on data to process touch-
screen commands. It is not merely a matter of adding
instructions to the drivers to allow processing of touch-
sensitive information. Thus, there is no motivation to
provide an input to the drivers in Caine since the drivers are
incapable of processing the information. The video control in
Caine is the host computer 10 and we agree with appellants
that "a combination of Norwood with Caine and Brody would at
best result in a multiple screen display unit having a single
touch-sensitive screen over the entire multiple screen display
unit and a single processor responsive to the input from the
touch-sensitive screen and for computing the entire image to
be displayed on the multiple screens" (Br11). That is, the
touch-sensitive signals would be sent to host computer 10 and
not to individual drivers. For this reason alone, the
obviousness rejection must be reversed.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007