Appeal No. 96-1444
Application 08/130,577
'independent' as utilized in the specification of this
application" (RR3), referring to page 5 of the specification,
beginning at line 35 and continuing over into page 6. The
specification does not discuss "independent" images, but does
talk about displaying "different images." The images A, B,
and C are different in Tatsumi and, thus, broadly are
independent. In addition, however, Tatsumi discloses (col. 8,
lines 53-66):
The above is an explanation for the method of this
invention in which a picture of an object is divided to a
plurality of poritions [sic, portions] for display on
respective whole screens. However, [the] invention is
also capable of displaying an individual picture on each
CRT screen (each picture is of course a component for
presenting a situation).
Such a method [can be] applied to a television game
machine with three CRT screens for example, in which game
machine the left screen illustratively displays a picture
of sallying fighters from a carrier, the right screen
displays a picture of the just fired interceptor
missiles, the middle screen displays a picture of a
battle-field, and each of the screens are independent to
present a scene. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, Tatsumi expressly discloses that the images may be
independent in the sense argued by appellants.
Appellants argue that "[t]he language of the
specification and the claims distinguish over situations where
a plurality of displays are utilized each displaying a
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007