Appeal No. 96-1647
Application No. 08/149,026
showing a list of at least one second player on the video
display of the first remote computer system;
the first player inviting a selected second player on a
selected second computer system from the list to play a selected
video game by transmitting an electromagnetic signal from the
first remote computer system to the selected second remote
computer system; and
displaying on the video display of the selected second
remote computer system at least a portion of the information
saved in the step of saving.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Sanner et al. 3,701,971 Oct. 31, 1972
Sitrick 4,521,014 June 4, 1985
Claims 7 through 15, 27 through 30 and 34 through 37 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Sitrick.
Claims 16, 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sitrick in view of Sanner.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that appellants do not rely on the
sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 to distinguish the claimed
invention over the prior art. In view of the lack of disclosure
concerning the computer system(s) and computer software needed to
implement the claimed computer-implemented method, such an
argument is probably foreclosed to appellants. In any event, we
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007