Appeal No. 2002-0042
Application 08/211,971
window does not include a plurality of mutually
exclusive display area that are respectively associated
with the users' input devices. Rather, it only
discloses a shared area that is accessible by all
users. There are no areas in this window that are
dedicated to individual users. Each user has access to
the entire area of the window.
The patent also discloses mutually exclusive
windows that are associated with the respective users'
input devices, e.g., A30 and B30. However, these
windows do not form part of a common image that is
simultaneously observable by each of the users.
Rather, these windows are only observable by the
individual users with whom they are associated. Hence,
there can be no assurance that each of the participants
would have access to, and benefit from, the input of
the other participants, so that they can follow a
common thought process.
In the final Office Action, the rejection of
claims 34, 38 and 40 (and explicitly claim 41) contains
a general reference to certain portions of the Nakayama
et al. patent, and goes on to state that "data input
from any of the input devices is displayed in a
corresponding one of mutually exclusive display areas
of the image." However, the rejection fails to address
the fact that, in the claimed invention, the plurality
of mutually exclusive display areas are components of a
common image that is simultaneously observable by each
of said persons. In the system of the Nakayama et al.
patent the image which displays one of the mutually
exclusive display areas, e.g., the image of Figure 2A
which displays the window A30, is not a common image
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007