Appeal No. 1998-1331
Application No. 08/357,626
graphic display images for proper alignment. However, that does not speak to the
requirement that the correction data are received “from the display processor.” We do not
find, nor has the examiner pointed out, any disclosure or suggestion in Mussler that the
display processor provide correction data for adjusting the calibration data, as set forth in
Claim 1 and described on page 13 of appellants’ specification. “In operation, if the image
height, width or centering setting stored in display memory 150 [Figure 1] are [sic]
changed, either by manual adjustment via user control 110 or by a change in display mode
issued by host computer system 180, display processor 140 is configured by microcode
stored in display memory 150 to communicate change data indicative of the magnitude of
the change in image parameters to touch processor 120 via bus 250.” (Specification,
page 13, lines 14-20.) This approach solves appellants’ stated problem in requiring
recalibration every time that image parameters are adjusted -- regardless of whether the
source of the adjustment is the user or a “host computer” running an application program.
Since the rejection does not explain how this requirement of claim 1 is shown or
suggested by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.
The other independent claims (11 and 15) require that the calibration data are adjusted in
response to adjustment of a parameter of a display area; the requirement has not been
shown to be disclosed or suggested by the prior art. The applied references fail to support
the conclusion that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to the
artisan. We therefore do not sustain the section 103 rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-18.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007