Appeal No. 1999-2637
Application 08/813,864
includes plural individual data processing systems, computers
or workstations which are connected together in a local area
network. Clark, column 2, lines 26-29. Nothing in Clark
teaches or suggests the limitation of enabling “multiple
display sessions through the single address on the NPT.”
Further, we find that nothing in Clark teaches or suggests the
limitation of “only one of the multiple display sessions
having the focus at any one time.” Therefore, we conclusively
determine that no implicit or explicit reason exists to
plausibly combine the teachings of Botterill, Marisetty and
Clark. Because we find that neither Botterill, Marisetty, nor
Clark, either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests
Appellants’ claimed limitations, we conclude that the Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 as obvious over Botterill, Marisetty,
and Clark.
The Federal Circuit instructs that "[t]he mere fact that
the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007