Appeal No. 1999-1606
Application No. 08/968,384
PS/2 CRT monitor which would not be applicable to a flat panel display as used with a laptop or other
portable computer “because the laptops do not connect and send information in the same manner that a
desktop sends display info to a standalone CRT” [brief-page 8].
We are unpersuaded by this argument since appellants do not explain how the manner of connection
and sending information differs between a portable computer, as claimed, and the computer taught by
IBM. Thus, we are unconvinced that the teachings of the IBM references would not be applicable to
flat panel displays. The important teaching of the IBM references is that they suggest that a display
monitor and a display adaptor can determine whether the other supports a self-identifying protocol
(IBM-1991) and that a display may comprise circuitry for sensing attachment to different levels of a
display adapter and for transmitting a different identification (ID) code in each case (IBM-1990).
Thus, since Hogdahl teaches a detachable flat panel display and the IBM references teach the
desirability of including circuitry in a display for sensing attachment to various adapters, or various levels
of adapters, and transmitting a different ID code for each level of adapter, it would not be unreasonable
to conclude that the skilled artisan would have been led to include such circuitry in the flat panel display
of Hogdahl in order to transmit a different ID code for each different adapter to which it is connected
when attaching to a different computer base unit.
Nevertheless, the instant claims each requires that the flat panel display module comprise a non-
volatile memory which contains a “single, arbitrary code word” unique to the type of display module.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007