Appeal No. 2003-1371 Page 16
Application No. 09/186,856
claims. Specifically, the appellants argue claims 2, 3, and 5 as group, (id. at 15);
claims 4 and 15 as group, (id. at 15); and claims 8, 11, and 13 as a group. (Id. at 20.)
Furthermore, they do not argue the patentability of claim 16 separately. Therefore,
claims 3 and 5 stand or fall with claim 2; claim 15 stands or falls with claim 4; claims 11
and 13 stand or fall with claim 8; and claim 16 stands or falls with claim 14.
With this representation in mind, we focus on the points of contention between
the examiner and the appellants. The examiner finds, "Naka et al. further requires two
players to act jointly with each other at certain points in said game when one player
drops behind (Naka et al., 20:35-40), or when exchanging by teleport box in the
competitive mode (Naka et al.'s Figs. 41, 42, 44, and 45)." (Examiner's Answer at 8.)
The appellants argue, "[n]owhere in Naka et al. is there any requirement for joint
action." (Reply Br. at 6.) They further argue, "[t]here is no suggestion in Naka et al.
that any type of 'cooperative mode' be employed while in a split screen mode." (Appeal
Br. at 17.) The appellants also argue, "there is only one cooperative mode action in
Naka et al. and it is not related to any particular point in the game." (Id. at 21.)
1. Claim Construction
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007