Appeal No. 1998-2892 Page 5
Application No. 08/576,621
apparently it is his theory that the Lipscomb system can be
considered to be a “game” and the information processed by the
system to constitute an “environment,” and that Lipscomb
“grows” this environment from a small to a large one (see
Answer, page 3). We do not agree. There is no support in
Lipscomb for the examiner’s position; from our perspective,
Lipscomb does not disclose either of the two elements required
by claims 1 and 3, and therefore clearly does not anticipate
the subject matter recited therein.
We therefore will not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 3 or, it follows, of claims 4-7, 9 and 10-12,
which are dependent from claims 1 and 3 and have been rejected
on the same basis.
The remaining claims stand rejected as being unpatentable
over Lipscomb in view of Perlin. The examiner’s position with
regard to this rejection is that Lipscomb teaches all of the
subject matter recited except for presenting avatar data, 4
which is taught by Perlin, and that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of
4"The PC user’s persona in the virtual world”
(appellant’s specification, page 6).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007