Appeal No. 1999-2213
Application No. 08/641,956
stereos or portable cellular gaming units.1 (See brief at page 4.) We agree with
appellant.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of the
cellular-based gaming of Norman with the portable laptop of Bradbury. (See brief at
page 5.) We agree with appellant. In our view, we find that the examiner has not
provided a convincing line of reasoning to combine the cellular communication between
plural display units and the control unit with the portable computer of Bradbury. The
examiner relies on the teachings of Bradbury in combination with the portable computer
being connected to the Internet for a majority of the teachings in the rejection. (See
answer at page 5.) We agree with the examiner that in the context postulated by the
examiner, games, music and any other data/information would be readily available over
the Internet. But, we question what the motivation of the skilled artisan would have
been to use a portable computer in a dedicated music and/or game system. While the
examiner has identified the correspondence of various parts of the postulated system to
1 Here we note that appellant argues the stereo and gaming units in the
alternative, but the language of independent claims 1 and 14 “exchanging digital and
video games” implying that each portable unit has both capabilities. We do not find a
disclosed embodiment having both functionalities. We further note that independent
claim 14 uses both “and” and “or” in the claim with respect to the exchange and retrieval
of the stored data.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007