Appeal No. 96-3765
Application No. 08/209,522
No. 20, filed February 2, 1996) and Supplemental Brief (Paper
No. 23, filed March 10, 1999) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
4, 13, 14, 21 through 24, 33, and 34.
Claim 1 requires "a first video display output" and
"generating at the first video display output first video
display signals" (underlining added for emphasis). As
admitted by the examiner (Answer, page 5), "Schultz does not
disclose expressly the display output as a video display
output and the display output signals as video display output
signals." Instead Schultz "convert[s] printer command data
derived from the printer output terminal" (Schultz, column 8,
lines 3-4). The examiner, however, concludes (Answer, page 5)
that it would have been obvious
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007