Appeal No. 1999-2001
Application No. 08/664,089
No. 14, filed November 30, 1998) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 17,
filed February 25, 1999) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 23.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 23 each recite a translation
board removably coupled to a graphics controller. The examiner
asserts (Answer, page 4) that it would have been obvious to apply
the removable translation board taught by Shah to the multi-
format frame buffer of Sakoda's display "so that it can be
setting the characteristic of a video signal supplied to a high
resolution video display monitor which is responsive to a signal
generate [sic] by the TTL logic that uniquely identifiers [sic]
the video display monitor's capabilities." Appellants argue
(Brief, page 10):
One skilled in the art would not look at Shah's
paddle card (36') containing circuitry (52') for signal
logic level translation which may be substituted for
one of the paddle cards (36), when it is necessary to
translate the logic level of certain signals (having
nothing to do with a display or graphics controller)
passing between the testing machine (13) and the
circuit board (12), (bi-directional signal passing),
and determine that a paddle card (36), having logic
level translation (and which in Shah is installed
between a channel card 44 and a translator member 16)
could somehow be installed in Sakoda's apparatus
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007