Appeal No. 1999-2637
Application 08/813,864
Botterill nor Marisetty, alone or in combination, teaches
these claimed
limitations. We further determine that the Ashkin prior art
does not close the gap by teaching or suggesting these claimed
limitations.
We find that Ashkin discloses a method of transferring
data between a plurality of peripheral devices and a host
computer. Ashkin, column 2, lines 35-55. Nothing in Ashkin
teaches or suggests the limitation of enabling “multiple
display sessions through the single address on the NPT.”
Further, we find that nothing in Ashkin teaches or suggests
the limitation of “only one of the multiple display sessions
having the focus at any one time.” Therefore, we conclusively
determine that no implicit or explicit reason exists to
plausibly combine the teachings of Botterill, Marisetty and
Ashkin. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claim 7. In so finding, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 7 as obvious over Botterill, Marisetty
and Ashkin.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007