Appeal No. 2006-1766
Application No. 09/773,090
Kashiwagi with regard to claims 1-8 and 10-18, adding Robotham
with regard to claim 9.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Taking claim 1 as exemplary, the examiner contends that
Karidis discloses the claimed subject matter but for a disclosure
of enabling text selected from a first document displayed on one
unit to be inserted directly at a predetermined location in a
document displayed on the other unit. The examiner turns to
Kashiwagi for its teaching of an electronic memo processing
apparatus (text editing unit) with a pen (manual actuator) to add
a memo (text) overlapped to a document displayed on a computer
(another text editing unit), and concludes that it would have
been obvious to combine the teachings of the references to
include enable text selected from a first document displayed on
one unit to be inserted directly at a predetermined location in a
document displayed on the other unit, “and by doing so it would
provide user friendly environment which allows a plurality of
users to add text from one device to another” (answer-page 6).
Appellants assert that display 108 in Karidis is not a
“second screen,” as contended by the examiner, but, rather, a
display that provides prompts or information to a user.
Appellants contend that Karidis does not disclose a user being
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007