Appeal No. 1998-0931 Page 8
Application No. 08/139,619
[the] players independently inputting the information to the
non-master dart games or receivers (50)."
Appellants assert (brief, page 11) that the rejection
does not address the invention as a whole. Appellants argue
that both Hedges and Tillery teach displays used to operate
their respective games, and that the displays are interactive
and player operated. According to appellants (id.), if a
person of ordinary skill in the art sought to increase the
number of terminals in a gaming system such as Hedges, "the
terminals would all be useful for operating the game as parts
of an interactive station at which data is entered and data is
displayed." With respect to Tillery, appellants point out
that Tillery (col. 5, lines 57-59) discloses the non-master
dart games 50 to "include visual displays for providing
players with directions, game scores, and the like."
Appellants conclude (id. at pages 11 and 12) that the
examiner has not met the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness because the cited references lack "the
appendage of a display controller and associated auxiliary
noninteractive displays to a lottery network of interactively
operable terminals including displays."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007