Appeal No. 97-2583
Application 08/156,951
basis to support a conclusion that Longo discloses separate
display device drivers which simultaneously paint on the same
display in response to different program processes.
Furthermore, because Longo does not disclose separate display
device drivers for the same display, Longo does not disclose a
virtual display device driver to which the separate display
device drivers are coupled and which makes possible the
control of which portions of the display each separate display
device driver may paint.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 12 and
15 cannot be sustained.
As for the rejection of claims 13, 14, 16 and 17 over
Rao, Longo, and Kolnick, the examiner has not applied Kolnick
in a manner which makes up for the deficiencies of Rao and
Longo. Accordingly, the rejection also cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Rao and Longo is reversed.
The rejection of claims 13, 14, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, Longo, and Kolnick is
reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007