Appeal No. 1999-2637
Application 08/813,864
multiple display sessions through a single address on a non-
programmable-terminal (NPT).” Moreover, we do not find that
Botterill teaches or suggests only “one of the multiple
display sessions having the focus at any time.”
In Botterill, we find that the only relevant teaching to
Appellants’ invention discloses the transfer of information
from a workstation controller (WSC) to a plurality of remote
non-programmable-terminals. Botterill, column 5,
lines 51-54. However, we do not find that Botterill teaches
or suggests Appellants’ claimed invention, and in particular,
the limitations that require “shared addressing of multiple
display sessions through the single address on the NPT” and
“only one of multiple display sessions having the focus at any
time.”
In reviewing the Marisetty prior art, we find that
Marisetty does not supply or suggest at least the limitations
of “shared addressing of multiple display sessions through the
single address on the NPT” and “only one of multiple display
sessions having the focus at any time.” Nothing in Marisetty
teaches or suggests enabling multiple display sessions through
a single address on the NPT. Further, we find that nothing in
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007