Appeal No. 97-1277
Application No. 07/820,261
scorecard must accept the input of player names. In our view,
the artisan would have found it obvious to enter the player
names into such an electronic device by manually operable
alphabet elements as broadly recited in claim 13.
With respect to the processor means, we do not agree
with appellant that the first three modes of claim 13 are not
suggested by the prior art. When the Peters’ device is
modified to become a baseball scorecard by the avid baseball
fan, the fan would realize that the entry of player names in
keeping a scorecard is essential. Likewise, the display of
this list of players (the lineup) would be clearly suggested
to the artisan. Finally, the Peters baseball scorecard device
would have to permit entry of field position information and
event information. Thus, the functions recited in claim 13
for the processor means would have to be carried out by any
electronic device accurately functioning as a baseball
scorecard. The identification of these different functions of
a baseball scorekeeper as different modes of operation is not
a patentably nonobvious distinction.
Although we have found many of appellant’s arguments
with respect to claim 13 to be nonpersuasive, we do agree with
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007