Appeal No. 1999-1605
Application 08/502,882
program successively." Consequently, the different
applications are responsive to the same group of user input
devices, and are not "responsive to different selected groups
of user input devices" (emphasis added), as claimed.
Therefore, the combination of Tanaka and Rickenbach would not
produce the claimed invention. We conclude that the Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The rejection of claim 1 is reversed.
Claims 2-14
Claim 2 is directed to viewing video information and
recites a personal computer having a processor, main memory, a
bus connecting the processor to the main memory, a display
adapter coupled to the bus, and a display driven by the
display adapter "wherein said processor is capable of
executing multiple applications and displaying multiple video
programming, each of which are responsive to selected groups
of the user input devices such that different applications and
different video programming are responsive to different
selected groups of the user input devices."
The Examiner finds that Tanaka, as modified by
Rickenbach, fails to disclose a main memory, a bus connecting
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007