Appeal No. 1999-2666 Page 6
Application No. 08/565,584
examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicants to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-8, 14-16, and
20 based on the teachings of Lanier in view of Okada. The
Appellants assert (brief, pages 10-12) that there is no
motivation to combine Lanier with Okada. Lanier is directed
to an intelligent help system and is not directed to a video
game, as is Okada. The appellants state (reply brief, page 2)
that
Lanier is a “click-on” help system. The dynamic
nature of a game would not be compatible with such
a system. In fact, Lanier’s “click-on” help system
would be detrimental in a game environment because
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007