Appeal No. 2000-0187
Application No. 08/430,943
Examiner’s conclusion that Appellant’s discussion of wireless
links and the recognition of problems with increased bandwidth in
transmitting graphical information over a wireless link is part
of the admitted prior art. To the contrary, we find that the
statements in the specification alleged to be admissions of prior
art by the Examiner, are in fact Appellant’s own analysis of
problems existing in the prior art and a solution to such
problems. These statements, as alluded to by Appellant (Brief,
page 22, are in compliance with suggestions for inclusion in the
“Background of the Invention” portion of a patent application
appearing at section 608.01(c)(2) of the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP).
In view of the above discussion, we find that the Examiner
has provided no prior art disclosure of connecting a portable
computing device (PCD) with a remote video display over a
wireless link, nor any recognition of a need for reduced
bandwidth transmission of graphical information over such
wireless link. In our opinion, any attempt to combine the
teaching of Carleton, which is directed to the connection of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007