Appeal No. 1999-2637
Application 08/813,864
Turning next to independent claim 14, we find that this
claim likewise 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.” Having previously
determined that neither Botterill, Marisetty nor Ashkin,
either alone or in combination, teaches these claimed
limitations, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14
as obvious over Botterill, Marisetty and Ashkin.
Dependent claims 3 and 4 incorporate the limitations of
independent claim 1. Dependent claims 9 and 10 incorporate
the limitations of independent claim 7. We have already
established that neither Botterill nor Marisetty teaches or
suggests the limitations of claims 1 or 7, specifically the
“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 that Clark does not close the gap by
teaching or suggesting these claimed limitations. Clark
discloses a method and system for remotely securing networked
computers. Clark, column 1, lines 34-36. The network
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007