Appeal No. 2000-0187
Application No. 08/430,943
has interpreted as being admitted prior art. According to the
Examiner (Answer, pages 5-7), this “Background” section, which
describes techniques for connecting video displays with larger
dimensions to a portable computing device (PCD), discloses the
claimed invention except that graphic information in the form of
a bitmap is transmitted to a video display, rather than the
transmission of graphic primitives as claimed. To address this
deficiency, the Examiner turns to the Carleton reference which,
in the Examiner’s view, describes the transfer of graphic data in
the form of high level instructions which treat image information
as objects such as rectangles, which the Examiner has likened to
the claimed “graphic primitives.” In the Examiner’s line of
reasoning (id. at 15), the skilled artisan would have been
motivated and found it obvious “... to transfer graphic
primitives instead of bitmaps from the PCD to the remote display
in order to reduce the bandwidth required to transfer display
[sic] the information to a remote computer display by a wireless
link.”
In response, Appellant contends that the Examiner has failed
to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness since proper
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007