Appeal No. 2000-0187
Application No. 08/430,943
motivation for the proposed combination of the admitted prior art
and Carleton has not been established. In support of this
position, Appellant asserts (Brief, pages 21-23) that the
Examiner has erred in interpreting the extent of what is admitted
prior art appearing in the “Background” section at pages 1-3 of
the specification.
In Appellant’s view, the admitted prior art is limited to
the known cabling and docking techniques for connecting a
portable computing device (PCD) with a remote video display
discussed at page 1, line 17 through page 2, line 5 of the
specification. Appellant further contends that the suggestion of
a wireless link, the recognition of graphical data transmission
problems associated with a wireless connection, and a solution to
overcome such problems (specification, page 2, line 6 through
page 3, line 3) is a result of Appellant’s own work, not any
admission of existence in the prior art.
After careful review of the statements in Appellant’s
specification and the Carleton reference, in light of the
arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s
position as stated in the Briefs. We find no basis for the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007