Appeal No. 1998-2983
Application No. 08/481,230
functionality associated therewith. Here, we agree with the examiner that the ordinary
definition of a window is appropriate (see answer at page 13), and we find that appellants'
definition attempts to import substantial
limitations from the specification into the claim rather than to include an express limitation
in the language of the claim itself. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
The examiner relies upon the transition from Figures 1(A) to 1(B) where image of
both parties are simultaneously displayed in windows 112 and 113 where image 112 is
automatically (see Maruo at col 22, lines 21-27 and col. 23, lines 46-49) switched from
window 111/117 to window 112. Thereafter, window 111 is used for graphical display of
meeting materials. (See answer at pages 3-5.) ; (See Maruo figures 1(A), 1(B)
and 6.)
With respect to claims 2-4, appellants have not set forth separate arguments for
patentability of these claims, therefore, claims 2-4 fall with claim 1.
With respect to claim 5, Maruo teaches the automatic transfer of the video image
from the common image display area 111 to the other party dynamic picture image area
upon display of the principal picture 120 in figure 1(B). Again, appellants argue that the
associated controls are required by the definition of a window. Again, we disagree with
appellants. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007