Appeal 2006-2281
Application 09/974,555
We also make the observation that Appellants’ disclosure describes
display configuration options or commands as ones which “specify the
operating conditions of the display, such as the display resolution ….”
(Specification 8:3-11). We find a similar discussion of display resolution
configuration in Ludtke which describes commands for setting each display
device to an appropriate configuration (Ludtke, col. 20, ll. 18-19 and 26-32).
We also agree with the Examiner that the multiple master device teachings
of Ludtke (e.g., col. 19, ll. 49-52) satisfies the additional plural master
computers and head computer requirements of independent claim 8.
Further, with respect to Appellants’ comments with respect to
language in the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 17, we don’t
necessarily disagree with Appellants’ arguments (Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-4)
that the language “collectively render a display” should be given patentable
weight. We agree with the Examiner (Answer 18-20), however, that, even if
such preamble language were given patentable weight, the claimed
limitations would be satisfied by the disclosure of Ludtke. We simply fail to
see why the configuration of display devices 24-40, as illustrated for
example in Ludtke’s Figure 2, would not be considered by the ordinarily
skilled artisan to “collectively render a display” across the multiple display
screens similar to what is illustrated in Appellants’ Figure 15 illustration.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations
are present in the disclosure of Ludtke, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 17, as well as dependent claims 2,
3, 5, 7, 9-16, 18, and 19 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of separately argued dependent claims 4 and 6 based on Ludtke, we
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013