Appeal No. 2006-2763
Application 09/785,385
other words, the media types of DeSimone are the same as the claimed “content”
since the type of media determines what is in the messages to be sent.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 3-6
argued together with claim 1 as one group, over DeSimone is sustained.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7-9, 11 and 14-23,
we will determine whether the Examiner has properly combined DeSimone and
Waters. Appellant argues that there is no suggestion for combining the references
where the computer gaming of Waters is non-analogous to the multicast
multimedia of DeSimone (Br. 4). Additionally, Appellant asserts that even if the
references are combined, no game and game developer specific “culling rules” are
taught (Br. 5). We agree with the Examiner (Answer 13-14) that the multi-user
network of Waters is a distributed network which transmits only relevant data
applicable to each participant (Waters, abstract; col. 9, ll. 59-63). Waters also
suggests optimizing interaction among multi-users when using bandwidth
resources is optimized (Waters, col. 4, l. 65 through col. 5, l. 3). We also find that
Appellant’s claim 11, as argued by the Examiner (Answer 15), does not include the
specific definition of “culling rules,” as argued by Appellant (Br. 5). Based on
these teachings and suggestions and Appellant’s own recognition of Waters using
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013