Appeal No. 96-1647
Application No. 08/149,026
Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 7 through 16, 27
through 32 and 34 through 37 is sustained.
An interactive video game apparatus is disclosed by Sitrick
(column 1, lines 15 through 18). Sitrick states that:
Means are provided for intercommunicating individual
peer game information, either globally or individually
to selected one(s) of the peer games. Means are
provided for generating global and individual peer game
displays to the selected display device(s). (Column 1,
lines 39 through 43).
A peer signifies someone of equal skill or interest level, and we
agree with the examiner that a bar graph (claim 12) is but one of
many ways in which "to indicate a range of intensity from lowest
to highest" (Answer, page 3). The examiner took official notice
of this fact (Answer, page 3), and appellants have not properly
challenged the examiner’s position (Brief, page 14).
According to Sitrick, "[a] plurality of user consoles 1060A-
F [sic, E] are interconnected and configured as a multiuser game
system," and "[a] plurality of displays 1100A-E are provided for
providing graphical illustration of game play action" (column 3,
lines 56 through 65). "Each individual game console can
communicate with all others" (column 8, lines 23 and 24), and
"each game can request special viewing, such as . . . global,
local, etc." (column 8, lines 8 and 9). With respect to
appellants’ arguments concerning two or more players playing or
observing a game, Sitrick further states:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007