Appeal No. 94-2081
Application No. 07/809,984
Claims 4, 8, 17, 22, 26, 34, 43 and 51 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Le Gall in
view of Hirabayashi and Kawamura.
Claims 14, 15, 22 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Le Gall in view of
Hirabayashi and Morris.
Claims 18, 37, 42 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Le Gall in view of
Hirabayashi and Wang.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection.
Le Gall discloses a method of enabling format independent
communication of visual information between otherwise
incompatible display devices. In Figure 1, the conversion
device 10 allows transmission of a raster display in a first
native format from originating device 12 to a receiving device
15 which produces a raster display in a second native format.
The conversion unit 10 receives headers 20 and 22 (Figure 2)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007