Appeal No. 2003-1371 Page 20
Application No. 09/186,856
Because players act jointly in using the teleport box while the screen is split, we
find that Naka requires joint action while the display is split. Therefore, we affirm the
obviousness rejection of claim 4 and of claim 15, which falls therewith.
We agree with the examiner's explanation that "Naka et al. [discloses] two types
of 'joint action,' one in the 'cooperative mode' with merged screen and one with position
exchange during split screen." (Examiner's Answer at 10.) We also agree with her
finding that "these are different joint actions at different points of the game." (Id.)
Because the game requires that the first character leads the second character when
one character falls far behind the other character, and the players also act jointly in
using the teleport box while the screen is split, we find that Naka requires different joint
action at different points in the game. Therefore, we affirm the obviousness rejection of
claim 8 and of claims 11 and 13, which fall therewith.
We agree with the examiner's finding that "Naka . . . at least splits at the point of
the game for competition, and merges at the point of the game where a player falls
behind. These points occur at different scenes or at parts of the game which require
different actions." (Examiner's Answer at 11.) Therefore, we affirm the obviousness
rejection of claim 14 and of claim 16, which falls therewith.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007