Appeal 2007-1100
Application 10/384,642
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner's rejection essentially
finds that Miyao teaches every claimed feature except for (1) a second
controller to control the display device to display multiple frames of images
in the display areas, and (2) aligning the images as a straight vertical or
horizontal strip instead of in the ring shape depicted in Mayo’s Figure 1
(Answer 4-5).
Regarding the first difference, the Examiner indicates that Miyao
teaches distributing tasks to separate controllers and concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to distribute the burden of the first display controller to separate
controllers to “further modulate the device” for easy replacement and
substitution. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner on this point.
Regarding the second difference, the Examiner cites Angiulo’s Figure 7 as
displaying thumbnail images in a straight horizontal strip and concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to display the ring strip of Miyao as a straight horizontal strip
to free up more of the display screen (Answer 4-6).
Appellant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest forming
the image display strip into multiple mutually adjacent image display areas
in a straight line in either a horizontal or vertical direction as claimed.
Appellant contends that Angiulo merely discloses multiple detached
thumbnails – not multiple mutually adjacent image display areas formed in a
straight line as claimed. Appellant emphasizes that skilled artisans would
recognize that “mutual adjacency” requires a common endpoint or border.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013