Appeal No. 2002-0042
Application 08/211,971
does not provide any explanations as to the manner in
which the user input windows A30, B30 could be
considered to form part of a common image that is
observable by each of the users.
In response to the examiner's position in the answer
relating to the feature of mutually exclusive display areas and
the examiner's position therein that Nakayama can be interpreted
to disclose display areas that are mutually exclusive, we agree
with the following from pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief:
However, Appellants do not dispute the fact that the
Nakayama et al patent can be interpreted to disclose
mutually exclusive display areas. In fact, in their
Brief, they explicitly acknowledged this fact. The
second full paragraph on page 6 of the Brief states
"The patent [Nakayama et al] also discloses mutually
exclusive windows that are associated with the
respective users' input devices, e.g., A30 and B30."
The Brief goes on to point out, however, that these
windows do not form part of a common image that is
simultaneously observable by each of the users, as
recited in the claims. The Answer fails to address
this aspect of the invention that was identified by
appellants as being one of its distinguishing features.
Hence, the examiner still has not shown where the
reference disclose every feature of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently, as required
for a proper rejection of anticipation under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. A showing that the reference discloses some of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007