Appeal No. 1999-2637
Application 08/813,864
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444 (“In
reviewing the examiner’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments.”). With
these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
The Appellants assert that Botterill provides no
suggestion of any means for enabling shared addressing of
multiple display sessions through the single address on the
NPT, nor of any focus change command means for identifying a
focus change request from the NPT for a requested display
session of the multiple display sessions sharing the single
address on the NPT and for changing focus. Brief at page 18,
lines 15-21. Additionally, the Appellants state that the
Marisetty prior art provides no suggestion of means for
enabling shared addressing of multiple display sessions on the
NPT and focus change command means for identifying a focus
change request from the NPT for a requested display session of
multiple display sessions sharing the single address on the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007