Appeal No. 97-1277
Application No. 07/820,261
appellant that the recitation of field position manually
operable elements dedicated to a given field position is not
suggested by the applied prior art. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 13 or of claims 14-19 and 30-32
which depend therefrom.
With respect to independent claim 23, appellant argues
that the prior art does not teach or suggest a means for
suspending the game mode and switching to the substitute
player entry mode as recited therein [brief, page 17]. The
examiner simply responds that it would have been obvious to
suspend the game mode and switch to the substitute player mode
because it was common in baseball to have substitute players
enter the game [answer, page 17]. Although we agree with the
examiner that it is common in the game of baseball to make
substitutions, we see no reason why the game would have to be
suspended in order to do this. Appellant has claimed a
specific way to make player substitutions, and this claimed
way is not suggested by the applied prior art.
Appellant also argues that claim 23 recites some dual
function manually operable elements which enter player names
in a player entry mode and event data in a game playing mode.
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007