Appeal No. 96-1444
Application 08/130,577
respective subset of an overall image so that the displays,
together, display the entire image" (RR3). However,
appellants do not point out what language in the claim is
relied on and how it distinguishes over Tatsumi. Two
subportions of a larger image are still independent images
because the information in one image is different from the
other. The claims do not preclude an arrangement of displays
as shown in Tatsumi where the first video image is displayed
on screen A, the second video image is displayed on screen B,
and the images are subportions of an overall image.
Nevertheless, we have noted that Tatsumi expressly discloses
that the images may be independent in the sense argued by
appellants.
Appellant states (RR4): "Wakeland does not provide
individual images to separate displays. It only overlays
information from one source onto an image from another source
on a single display." This seems to be a statement of fact
rather than an argument. The background and foreground images
in Wakeland are "independent" images interleaved in memory
(col. 4, lines 1-5; col. 5, lines 17-30). Thus, Wakeland
discloses storing two independent images interleaved in memory
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007