Appeal 2007-0764
Application 09/840,469
1 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
2 appeal is:
3
Kohut US 6,338,008 B1 Jan. 8, 2002
Coppola US 6,360,138 B1 Mar. 19, 2002
Devine US 6,763,376 B1 Jul. 13, 2004
4
5 The Examiner reasons that Coppola discloses the invention as
6 claimed, except that Coppola does not disclose an integrated customer
7 interface system with a single display controller running a plurality of
8 displays. The Examiner relies on Devine for teaching a single display
9 controller for running a plurality of displays. The Examiner finds that the
10 Frame NAT (Network Address Translator)/Router depicted in Figure 2 of
11 Devine is a display controller running a plurality of displays.
12
13 Appellants contend that Devine does not disclose or suggest a display
14 controller which runs browser applications for each of a plurality of displays
15 and which has an assigned Internet Protocol (IP) address with each of the
16 browser applications having a unique port associated with the IP address.
17
18 ISSUES
19 Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Devine
20 discloses a display controller which runs browser applications for each of a
21 plurality of displays and which has an assigned IP address with each of the
22 browser applications having a unique port associated with the IP address?
23
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013