Appeal No. 2003-1371 Page 25
Application No. 09/186,856
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,
783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, Logg discloses "[a] multi-player, multi-character video game where the
gams rules force the players to cooperate. . . ." Abs., ll. 1-2. Although we agree with
the examiner that reference "teach[es] players sharing limited resources . . . and
further, acting cooperatively to defense each other from monster and overcome
challenges," (Examiner's Answer at 13), the examiner does not allege, let alone show,
that Logg requires holding a door for a player, handing a tool to a player, giving an item
to a player, or helping a player lift an object. Absent a teaching or suggestion of one of
these specific actions, we are unpersuaded of a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 19.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-18, 20, and 21 under § 103(a) is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 19 under § 103(a), however, is reversed.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007