Appeal No. 96-3765
Application No. 08/209,522
one, as a video signal is not generally used for word
processors, we find that Schultz does not inherently include a
video output and video signals. Since Schultz has no video
output, and the examiner has not addressed whether or not it
would have been obvious to include a video output and video
signals, the substitution of a video display port for the
printer port of Schultz would not have been obvious on this
record.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1
and its dependents, claims 2 through 4, 13, and 14.
Furthermore, since claim 21 includes the same limitations
found lacking from Schultz above, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 21 and its dependents, claims 22 through
24, 33, and 34.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007