Appeal No. 2003-1371 Page 21
Application No. 09/186,856
F. COMPLETION OF GAME
The appellants argue claims 6, 9, 12, and 17 as group. (Appeal Br. at 18.)
Furthermore, they do not argue the patentability of claim 21 separately. Therefore,
claims 9, 12, and 17 stand or fall with representative claim 6, and claim 21 stands or
falls with claim 20.
The examiner finds, "[i]f players are in Naka et al.'s cooperative mode, it
necessarily follows that player one cannot complete the game without player two
completing the game. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 9.) The appellants argue, "[a]lthough
Naka et al. prevents a novice player or an inattentive player from losing by a wide
margin, it certainly allows only one player to win." (Appeal Br. at 18.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 6 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "no player can complete
the game without all players also completing the game." Claim 20 includes similar
limitations. Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations
require that no player can complete the game without the other player also completing
the game.
2. Obviousness Determination
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007