Appeal No. 2003-0440
Application No. 09/430,162
examiner admits (Answer, page 4) that Vicard fails to disclose a
video controller within the second enclosure, as recited in
independent claims 1, 11, and 21. To remedy this deficiency, the
examiner turns to Hong. According to the examiner, Hong
discloses
a split computer . . . has a first enclosure [local
processor board 100 in fig. 1] including a processor
[P6 intel orion in fig. 3] . . . and a second enclosure
[remote I/O cabinet 112 in fig. 1] including the
plurality of input/output controllers which include a
video controller [I/O functions including motion video
and multi-media displays: col. 1, lines 20-32].
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 5) that it would have been
obvious
to combine the teachings of Vicard et al and Hong
because they both teach a split computer comprising a
first enclosure including a processor . . . and a
second enclosure including the plurality of
input/output controllers and Hong's teaching of a video
controller included in the plurality of input/output
controllers in the second enclosure would increase
enhancing I/O functions of Vicard et al and/or increase
user adaptability/friendliness of Vicard et al's user
interface components by providing video function for
display.
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 4-5, and Reply Brief, pages
2-4) that the cited portion of Hong says nothing about locating a
video controller in a second enclosure separate from the computer
processor. Further, appellants point out (Reply Brief, page 2)
that the type of components listed by Vicard as being located in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007