Appeal No. 97-2583
Application 08/156,951
display device driver.
Opinion
We reverse.
A reversal of the rejections on appeal should not be
construed as an affirmative indication that the appellants’
claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on
which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal is
based.
Both claims 12 and 15 require separate video display
device drivers for painting a display and which are
simultaneously coupled to the video display. Interpreted in
light of the specification, the claims thus require separate
video display drivers to make drawings on the same video
display at the same time. Both claims 12 and 15 also require
a single virtual video display device driver to which each of
the separate video display device drivers are coupled and
which gives control information as to what portions of the
video display screen each of the separate video display device
driver may paint.
The examiner recognizes that Rao does not teach separate
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007