Appeal No. 2006-0745
Application No. 09/792,758
Treibitz, is not the same as controlling the flow of the
presentation. Appellants argue that the judge in Treibitz does
not control the flow of the presentation and cannot control the
sequence of slides or flow of the presentation during the conduct
of the presentation [brief, pages 7-11].
The examiner responds that the judge in Treibitz is part of
the audience, and the judge can control the flow of the
presentation when a judge configuration mode is present.
Specifically, the examiner asserts that the judge controls the
flow of the electronic presentation when he screens and previews
the images [answer, pages 7-8].
Appellants respond that it is the presenter in Treibitz that
controls the flow of the presentation and not the judge as
asserted by the examiner. Appellants insist that only the
presenter in Treibitz can control the flow and order of the
presentation [reply brief, pages 2-3].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 34-36 for
essentially the reasons argued by the examiner. We agree with
the examiner that the mere fact that the judge in Treibitz can
control which images are seen by the jury is enough to meet the
broad recitation of controlling the flow of the presentation in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007