Appeal No. 97-1277
Application No. 07/820,261
player entry mode is not suggested by the applied prior art.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 23 or of
claims 34-36 which depend therefrom.
With respect to independent claim 37, appellant makes
many of the same arguments which we have considered above.
Although we do not agree with all of appellant’s arguments for
reasons discussed above, we note that claim 37 recites a set
of manually operable elements, “each element of which is
dedicated to one of said player positions.” As we noted above
in our consideration of claim 13, the applied prior art does
not teach or suggest such a dedicated arrangement of input
elements. This simplifies the entry of event data into the
device. We also indicated above why Klose adds nothing of
interest or relevance with respect to this claim recitation.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 37 or of
claims 38-40 which depend therefrom.
With respect to independent claim 41, appellant argues
that the combination of means recited therein relates to
patentable subject matter [brief, pages 23-24]. The first
means of claim 41 is directed to manually operable elements
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007