Ex parte BEITEL - Page 5




                 Appeal No. 1999-0227                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/722,414                                                                                                             


                 stimuli provided by a computer.   This is not the case in the2                                                                              
                 Mallinckrodt system, which is an actual cellular                                                                                       
                 communications system, in which users operate in real time in                                                                          
                 a real environment.  The second reason is that the appellant’s                                                                         
                 claims require that a transmitted change of state (the                                                                                 
                 message) from a specific user be sent to other users based                                                                             
                 upon their closeness to the sender in the virtual environment,                                                                         
                 that is, the distance between the sender and the recipients,                                                                           
                 whereas in the Mallinckrodt system this is of no consequence,                                                                          
                 for what matters is the sum of the distance between the sender                                                                         
                 and the required relay station (satellite or tower), and the                                                                           
                 distance between the relay station and the recipient.                                                                                  
                          Since all of the subject matter recited in independent                                                                        
                 claims 1, 5 and 8 is not present in the reference, it cannot                                                                           
                 be anticipatory.  This being the case, we will not sustain the                                                                         
                 rejection of claims 1, 5 and 8 or, it follows, of claims 2-4,                                                                          
                 6 and 7, which are dependent therefrom.                                                                                                





                          2See, for example, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate                                                                               
                 Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1996, page 1320.                                                                                            
                                                                           5                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007