Appeal No. 2000-0187
Application No. 08/430,943
separate computer systems over a wired telephone line, could not
come from any suggestion in the prior art but, rather, only from
Appellant’s own disclosure.3
We have also reviewed the disclosures of the Folger and
Gaskill references applied by the Examiner to address the
recitations of the housing structure of the wireless transmitters
and receivers, respectively, of several dependent claims. We
find nothing, however, in either of these references that would
overcome the innate deficiencies of the teachings of the admitted
prior art and Carleton discussed supra. Accordingly, since the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness,
the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 20, as well as
claims 2-8, 10-16, 18, 19, and 21 dependent thereon, is not
sustained.
3 Since we find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness based on the proposed combination of the admitted prior
art and Carleton, the issue of whether Carleton does in fact disclose the
generation of graphic primitives using a video driver is moot.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007