Appeal No. 2006-0745
Application No. 09/792,758
copy) of the presentation is stored or cached on the remote
computers associated with the audience members. Figure 2 of
Treibitz also shows that the judge’s touch panel is connected to
one of the remote computers. Thus, we find that Treibitz teaches
that a cached copy of the presentation is provided to the judge
and that the judge can control the flow of the presentation as
discussed above. Since the presenter’s display remains
unaffected while the judge is deciding whether to allow a given
image to be displayed to the jury, we also find that the judge
can control the flow of the presentation without affecting the
presenter’s display. As also noted above, the judge’s button in
Treibitz allows the judge to control the image seen by the judge
or other audience member [column 6, lines 57-60]. These
teachings meet the recitations of independent claim 37.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of
the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 34-46 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007