Appeal No. 1998-2892 Page 4
Application No. 08/576,621
construct a simulated city or the like so that the game becomes
more complex and interesting and can support more players.
These independent claims stand rejected as being
anticipated by Lipscomb, which is directed to a method for3
retrieving secure information from a database. One of the
objectives of the Lipscomb invention is to discourage users who
receive information from the database from improperly using it
without providing suitable compensation to the owner. To this
end, Lipscomb “explodes” the data items to an inconveniently
large size by adding a mass of meaningless data so that the
user will be discouraged from maintaining it in a permanent
database or passing it to others. There is no mention in
Lipscomb of using the system in the context of a game, nor of
electronic map data or an environment growing code.
Nevertheless, the examiner has taken the position that the
subject matter of claims 1 and 3 is anticipated by Lipscomb.
While the examiner has not explained his rationale in detail,
3Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See, for example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007