Appeal No. 1999-2637
Application 08/813,864
Marisetty teaches or suggests one of the multiple display
sessions having the focus at any one time.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions found in
the prior art. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1,
6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In this case, the Examiner has failed to
show, and we find no evidence of, any teaching or suggestion
in Botterill or Marisetty of Appellants’ claimed limitations,
and in particular, the limitations of “shared addressing of
multiple display sessions through the single address on the
NPT” and “only one of the multiple display sessions having the
focus at any time.” We further find no implicit or explicit
reason to plausibly combine the teachings of Botterill and
Marisetty in a manner that suggests or would make obvious
Appellants’ claimed invention.
Because neither Botterill nor Marisetty, alone or in
combination, teaches or suggests Appellants’ claimed
limitations, we conclude that the Examiner has failed to
establish a
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007