Appeal No. 1999-2637
Application 08/813,864
NPT and for changing focus to the requested display session.
Brief at page 19, lines 1-8. Appellants finally conclude that
there is neither an express nor an implied suggestion in
Botterill and Marisetty which would have motivated the artisan
to modify the Botterill reference in a manner which would
result in that which is claimed. Brief at page 20, lines 19-
23.
The Examiner responds that Marisetty teaches a means for
enabling and sending a shared addressing request. Examiner’s
Answer, page 5, line 18, to page 6, line 8. The Examiner also
asserts that Marisetty discloses a means for checking a shared
addressing request and for identifying shared addressing
request in set-up from the NPT for setting a shared addressing
flag. Examiner’s Answer, page 6, lines 2-4. Additionally,
the Examiner states that Marisetty teaches a means for
enabling shared
addressing. The Examiner additionally contends that Marisetty
teaches a means for changing focus. Examiner’s Answer, page
6, lines 10-11.
Reviewing Botterill, we do not find that Botterill
discloses Appellants’ claimed “apparatus for supporting
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007