Appeal No. 2006-0745
Application No. 09/792,758
claims 34 and 35. At a minimum, the judge in Treibitz exercises
joint control with the presenter over the flow of the
presentation. Treibitz also discloses that “[a]n additional
separate button for a ‘judge’ or other audience can also be
provided and used to control the display of the selected image to
the judge or other audience independently of the display to the
jury” [column 6, lines 56-60]. We interpret this passage as
suggesting that the judge or other audience member can control
the flow of the presentation during the presentation. Finally,
Treibitz teaches that more than one user can control the
presentation display system [column 7, lines 15-21]. The fact
that there can be more than one user exercising control in
Treibitz would have suggested to the artisan that the second user
could be a member of the “audience” since the term “audience” is
broad enough to include any person other than the presenter.
With respect to claims 37-46, which are argued as a single
group by appellants, appellants additionally argue that there is
no cached copy of the electronic presentation provided to the
audience members in Treibitz so that they are allowed to display
and control the presentation at one or more audience displays
without affecting the presenter’s display [brief, pages 11-13].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007