Appeal No. 2006-0745
Application No. 09/792,758
The examiner responds that a cached copy is required in
Treibitz in order to initiate a re-show when the display is
turned back on by the judge. The examiner asserts that a cached
copy must be forwarded to the remote locations in order for the
judge to present items separately to the audience [answer, pages
8-9].
Appellants respond that the portions of Treibitz cited by
the examiner fail to indicate that a cached copy of the
presentation is provided to the audience or that the audience can
control the flow or sequence of the presentation [reply brief,
pages 3-7].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 37-46.
As noted above with respect to claims 34-36, the judge in
Treibitz is the audience member for purposes of the rejection.
As also noted above, the judge can control the flow of the
presentation in Treibitz. Treibitz teaches that “[i]mages to be
displayed on the courtroom displays ... can be stored locally on
the remote presentation system computer(s) prior to the time they
are selected for viewing, or can be sent to the remote
presentation system computer just prior to their display” [column
4, lines 20-25]. This teaching suggests that a copy (cached
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007