Appeal No. 2005-1975 Page 10
Application No. 09/819,292
“to employ a specific software application (driver) for a
respective position of a display panel as it is shown by Kumar et
al in the device by Haneda et al in order to support functioning
of the display of the computer in different modes.”
Appellant’s position (brief, page 7) is that Kumar does not
specifically teach the display panel being controlled by two
different software applications. It is argued (id.) that
“Kumar does not specifically teach the display panel being
controlled by two different software applications.” Appellant
additionally (brief, page 8) makes a general assertion
that “neither Haneda nor Kumar, individually or in combination,
teach or suggest a method as claimed in claim 9. Moreover,
neither the references themselves nor the art generally contain a
suggestion or motivation to combine the referenced teachings as
suggested by the Examiner.” However, appellant presents no
specific arguments to support the assertion.
From our review of claim 9, we observe at the outset that
the claim only requires two modules. In addition, the claim
recites that the first and second modules form a first viewing
area that interacts with a first type of applications configured
to run with the first viewing area. The claim additionally
recites that the display screen of the first module is used as a
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007