Appeal No. 96-1647
Application No. 08/149,026
presume all of the computer system(s) and software "required to
perform the claimed method is admittedly old" or that "anyone
desiring to carry out the process would know" of the computer
system(s) and computer software to be used, "none being
specifically described." In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 1407, 176
USPQ 340, 341 (CCPA 1973).
According to appellants (Brief, page 24), they have not
introduced evidence of nonobviousness (e.g., commercial success)
because "the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness." Appellants’ arguments (Brief, pages 8 through 24)
to the contrary notwithstanding, we are of the opinion that the
examiner has adequately explained how each of the limitations in
the claims on appeal can either be expressly located in Sitrick
or can be inferred from the teachings and suggestions thereof.
As indicated infra, we likewise believe that the skilled artisan
would have known that a third remote computer system in Sitrick
can enter or observe a game. For this reason, the teachings of
Sanner2 are merely cumulative to those already found in Sitrick.
2 Although Sanner is not from the same field of endeavor as
Sitrick, Sanner does, however, address the same problem addressed
by Sitrick (i.e., monitoring communications between two other
users of the system). Appellants’ arguments (Brief, pages 6 and
7) to the contrary notwithstanding, the terminal computer 21 in
Sanner monitors communications between the central processing
unit 11 and the terminal computer 25.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007