Appeal No. 1999-1606
Application No. 08/968,384
The IBM references do not disclose or suggest that there is a single, arbitrary code word that is unique
to the type of display module. Rather, the IBM references suggest that the display panel transmits a
different ID code for each adapter. Thus, the display panel of the IBM references do not contain a
“single, arbitrary code word” unique to the type of display module. Further, the IBM references do not
suggest that the display panel has a non-volatile memory which contains this “single, arbitrary code
word” that is unique to the display module.
Accordingly, in order for the rejection to be proper, the noted deficiencies need to have been
suggested by Sawdon since it is the final reference relied upon by the examiner.
The examiner points to Figures 1 and 2, column 3, lines 50-58, column 4, lines 1-19 and column 5,
lines 30-34 of Sawdon as evidence of providing identification codes stored in the non-volatile memory
of a display module and concludes therefrom that it would have been obvious to
have included such a non-volatile memory containing such an identification code in Hogdahl, as
modified by the IBM references.
Sawdon clearly does disclose a non-volatile memory in a display monitor, and appellants fairly admit
as much at page 9 of the brief. However, appellants argue, Sawdon does not disclose the storage of a
“single, arbitrary code word” which is then matched in the host with a driver and necessary data to
drive the display. As appellants argue, at page 9 of the brief, an artisan “would not discern from
Sawdon a need for a minimum memory (one code word).” The examiner offers no response to this
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007