Appeal No. 1999-2666 Page 10
Application No. 08/565,584
Mott. We begin with claims 11-13, which depend from claim 1.
As Mott does not overcome the deficiencies of Lanier and
Okada, the rejection of claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed. Turning to claim 21, we find that Mott does not
overcome the deficiencies of Lanier and Okada. In addition we
find that while Mott teaches displaying gauges to provide
advice to a player, Mott does not teach “judging data of
gauges used in the
game . . . advising the player on a current state of a gauge
and displays the advice image on the display depending on the
judging data.” Moreover, we find no suggestion to provide
Okada with gauges as tachometers, would not be of value in
Okada’s game. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 18 and 19 as
unpatentable over Lanier in view of Mott, further in view of
Okada and Pierce, as Mott and Pierce do not overcome the
deficiencies of Lanier and Okada, the rejection of claims 18
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007