Appeal No. 1998-2892 Page 3
Application No. 08/576,621
Claims 2, 8 and 13-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Lipscomb in view of Perlin.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the rejections, we make reference to the
final rejection (Paper No. 8) and the Appellant’s Briefs
(Papers Nos. 14 and 16).
OPINION
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
The appellant’s invention relates to a computer game that
can be played simultaneously by a large number of users.
Independent claim 1 is directed to computer software stored in
a computer memory, which comprises means for receiving
electronic map data and an environment growing code for growing
an environment from the map data. Independent claim 3 is
directed to a computer method comprising steps that include
these two features. As explained by the appellant, “growing an
environment” is intended to mean enhancing the two dimensional
presentation provided by the map with additional information to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007