Appeal No. 1999-1606
Application No. 08/968,384
Claims 6-13 stand rejected under double patenting over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No.
5,262,759. Claims 6-13 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner cites Hogdahl in view of either one of the IBM references and Sawdon with regard to claims
6-8 and 10-13, adding Steiner to this combination with regard to claim 9.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we will sustain, pro forma, the rejection of claims 6-13 based on double
patenting since appellants have chosen not to argue the rejection [bottom paragraph on page 6 of the
brief].
Turning now to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner explains that Hogdahl discloses
everything set forth in claims 6-8 and 10-13 but for the single arbitrary code word stored in a non-
volatile memory in a display module. However, the examiner relies on either one of the IBM references
to supply that deficiency. More specifically, the examiner points to page 85 of the 1990 IBM reference
or, alternatively, pages 406-407 of the 1991 IBM reference for a display having a signal arbitrary
identification code. The examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to have modified
Hogdahl with the teaching of either of the IBM references “so a display device could be identified by
the main unit and a display system could be potentially compatible with an unlimited variety of display
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007