Appeal No. 2003-1371 Page 4
Application No. 09/186,856
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on the seven points of contention therebetween:
• nature of game
• analogousness of Curchod
• game location
• motivation to combine Naka, Stamper, and Curchod
• joint action of players
• completion of game
• cooperative actions.
A. NATURE OF GAME
"Reading Naka et al. at column 22, lines 65-68," (Examiner's Answer at 13), the
examiner finds that the reference "meets appellants' definition of an adventure game."
(Id.) The appellants argue, "[m]aze games and sports simulators are clearly NOT
adventure games as that term is well known in the art." (Appeal1 Br. at 25.) In
addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis. First, we
construe claims at issue to determine their scope. Second, we determine whether the
construed claims would have been obvious.
1We rely on and refer to the substitute appeal brief, (Paper No. 17), in lieu of the
original appeal brief. (Paper No. 15.), because the latter was defective. (Paper
No. 16.) The original appeal brief was not considered in deciding this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007