Appeal No. 2002-0042
Application 08/211,971
The paragraph in the Answer that deals with the
first issue states that claims 41-44 "do not even
recite the 'mutually exclusive' feature." While these
claims do not contain the explicit term "mutually
exclusive," they still recite the distinguishing
feature of the invention that was argued by Appellants.
For instance, claim 41 recites a method of facilitating
structured communications between a plurality of
persons. The method includes the step of using at
least one computer "to form a common image on at least
one display means simultaneously observable by each of
said persons...." The claim further recites that "data
input from anyone of said input devices is displayed in
a dedicated display area of said common image
associated with said one input device." The Nakayama
et al patent does not disclose such a dedicated display
area that is associated with an input device and is
observable by each of the plurality of persons in a
common image. The common image that is viewable by all
participants in the system of the Nakayama et al
patent, namely the window A50, B50, does not include
dedicated areas. Rather, the entire area of the window
can be shared by all of the users.
It is thus apparent to us that the examiner has not fully
come to grips with all of the limitations of each of the
independent claims on appeal. Nakayama also does not teach
within 35 U.S.C. § 102 all features required of each independent
claim on appeal leading us to reverse the rejection of each of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007