Appeal No. 2006-1766
Application No. 09/773,090
in that the tablet of Kashiwagi is considered as one unit or
screen that the electronic memo (text) is written on, and the
user who writes the electronic memo can edit (add or insert) the
electronic memo from the first unit or screen to the document
displayed on the display device (second screen). The examiner
refers to column 10, line 63-column 11, line 4 of Kashiwagi.
We REVERSE.
We agree with appellants that neither Karidis nor Kashiwagi
describes a “second screen,” as required by the instant claims.
With regard to display 108 in Figure 5 of Karidis, this
display provides prompts for, and/or communicates information to,
a user 154 (see column 8, lines 62-63). Thus, the display
prompts a user or communicates information to a user, but there
is no indication that this display includes any manual actuator
that enables a user to interact with any of the text on display
108. The only “interaction” is in the user, for example, being
prompted by the display to do something. Moreover, as recognized
by the examiner, no text may be imported from/to display 108
to/from a first screen. Thus, no “second screen,” as claimed is
described in Karidis.
As for the examiner’s reliance on markable surface 150 of
Karidis for the “second screen,” we agree with appellants that
markable surface 150 is not a “second screen,” as claimed. The
two displays described by Karidis are display 202 and display
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007