Appeal No. 97-1227
Application 08/163,416
According to the appellant (reply brief at 3), "[e]ach claim
requires storage of the respective application program window
display data and corresponding action field in the local
processor memory, and storage of remaining display data in the
remote processor memory." The appellant states (Reply at 4):
"[I]n Eagen et al., there is no division of storage, as
claimed by the appellant." [Emphasis added].
The appellant’s argument is misplaced. Claim 1 has no
language which actually requires any "division of storage."
Both the host processor and the local processor can store the
entirety of the display data and that would still be within
the defined scope of claim 1. All that is required is that
the local processor memory stores certain display data and the
host processor stores certain remaining display data. Nothing
precludes either processor from storing additional data
including data already stored in the other processor.
Citing column 9, lines 26-29 and column 9, line 68 to
column 10, line 2, the examiner finds that Eagen teaches
transmitting only the desired window panel contents to the
local processor from the host processor (Supp. Answer at 5).
Citing column 8, lines 29-32, the examiner finds that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007