Appeal No. 1999-2637
Application 08/813,864
prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Botterill and
Marisetty.
Turning next to independent claim 17, we note that this
claim incorporates the limitations of “shared addressing of
multiple display sessions through the single address on the
NPT” and “only one of the multiple display sessions on the NPT
having the focus at any time.” Having already determined that
neither Botterill nor Marisetty, alone or in combination,
teaches these claimed limitations, we conclude, without
further review, that the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to independent
claim 17. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 17 as obvious over Botterill and Marisetty.
Reviewing now independent claim 7, we note that this
claim also incorporates 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 have already determined that neither
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007