Appeal 2007-0145
Application 10/183,797
the protected window" in claim 11, and the "means for providing
instructions to the processor for automatically inactivating the protected
window" in claim 16, do not require that the program code is executed by
the main computer processor as opposed to the keyboard processor in Hale.
It is noted that the monitor in Hale is under control of the keyboard
processor.
Many claims read on the admitted prior art screen saver
Before discussing the Examiner's rejection, we note that most of the
claims are so broad that they read on the admitted prior art.
Appellants describe the prior art as follows (Specification ¶ 0004):
The use of screen saver's [sic] is well known in the art. Upon
detecting the inactivity of a computer monitor for some predetermined
period of time, settable by a user, the screen saver automatically locks
the screen. The screen saver generally displays a moving image to
preserve the integrity of the monitor, but can also be a blank display.
When activity is again detected, e.g., by movement of a mouse or
depressing of a key on a keyboard, the screen saver is unlocked and
the monitor reverts to the display at the time the screen saver was
activated. However, upon unlocking the screen saver, the last used
window is still active. Therefore, secret or sensitive information
displayed in an active window may be revealed to an unintended
viewer.
Appellants describe a screen saver where the screen saver disappears
(i.e., the windows are "reactivated") when you touch a key or move a mouse.
Appellants do not describe a screen saver with password protection,
although this was notoriously well known at the time of the invention. In a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013