Appeal 2006-2281
Application 09/974,555
data stream enabling a display across multiple display screens as in the
Ludtke reference.
After careful review of the Ludtke reference in light of the arguments
of record, however, we are in general agreement with the Examiner’s
position as stated in the Answer. In particular, we find that the Examiner did
not err in finding that the master device 22 in Ludtke provides a “compatible
operating configuration” for the slave display devices 24-40 as that claim
terminology is interpreted in light of the Appellants’ Specification.
Initially, we agree with the Examiner (Answer 14-15) that Appellants’
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. In particular,
while Appellants contend (Br. 4-5) that Ludtke’s disclosed display
configuration does not encompass the configuration of the graphics cards of
the display computers, we find no such requirement in the language of the
appealed claims. It is our opinion that Appellants’ arguments improperly
attempt to narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed
limitations which have no basis in the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Further, while Appellants argue (Br. 6) that Ludtke’s described
display configuration is directed to video stream partitioning and not to
operating modes or states, such as in Appellants’ non-limiting example of
“stereo” and “mono” modes (Specification 7), we find clear evidence to the
contrary in the disclosure of Ludtke. For example, as also mentioned by the
Examiner (Answer 16), Ludtke discloses the configuration of the display
devices to operate in various modes or states such as the exemplary
“overlay” mode (col. 17, ll. 18-45) and “picture-in-picture” mode (col. 21, ll.
54-61).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013