Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
Claim 1 recites "further processor means functioning as a
controlling processor" which receives input command signals
and generates modified graphical command signals. The
examiner's rejection does not account for any of these
limitations. The examiner does not explain why, even if each
display screen was controlled by its own processor, it would
have been obvious to then send the command signals from the
touch-sensitive screens to a controlling processor and back
again to the individual processors. The systems in Brody and
Caine are one-directional signal systems, from the processor
or computer to the displays. In our opinion, one of ordinary
skill in the art would interpret the combination of Norwood
and Caine as suggesting the touch commands be directed to the
host computer 10 in Caine and not to the drivers and then to
the host computer. For this additional reason, the
obviousness rejection must be reversed.
The last subparagraph of claim 1 recites, as part of the
"further processor means," a "means for transmitting said
modified graphical command signals to said basic display units
via said network, in response to which said plurality of basic
display units generate a graphical image across said
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007