Appeal No. 2004-0975
Application No. 09/793,595
Those portions at columns 7 and 8 of Jacobs and columns 11 and 12
of Jacobs that are relied upon by the examiner do not support the
examiner’s views. If anything, all that is selectively displayed on the
display 34 of the computer 14 by the user (Figure 1) is transferred to the
watch 20, for example in Figure 1, or the PDA-type device 220 in Figures
12-15. Notwithstanding the teaching in Jacobs that the user apparently
has the ability to select what is displayed on the display 34 of the computer
14 in Figure 1 of Jacobs, all that is displayed is remotely transferred to the
watch/portable device.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with appellant’s basic assertion
that neither of the reference to Cortopassi or Jacobs teaches or suggests
sending less than all of the display output from a first computer to a
portable computer as recited essentially in independent claims 11, 19 and
23 on appeal. The additional features of dependent claim 25 for which the
examiner relies on the additional teachings of Lavelle to allegedly render
obvious the subject matter of this claim, is not asserted by the examiner to
teach this feature. Appellant’s views at page 10 of the principal brief on
appeal and in the reply brief appear to take the same view.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007