Appeal No. 2004-0121
Application No. 09/507,368
The reference set forth below is relied upon by the examiner
in the section 102 rejection before us:
Eggleston et al. (Eggleston) 6,061,660 May 9, 2000
(filed Mar. 18, 1998)
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Eggleston.
This rejection cannot be sustained.
It is well settled that anticipation is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As correctly argued by the appellants, Eggleston does not
disclose, expressly or inherently, a method which includes steps
(e), (f) and (g) of the independent method claims on appeal or an
apparatus which is capable of performing such steps as required
by appealed independent apparatus claim 30. We recognize that
patentee discloses using a computer to establish a game situation
for a user and concomitantly to generate results regarding the
game situation. However, the Eggleston patent contains no
teaching of the here claimed features which involve generating
second results using a first game situation and first results as
inputs, generating a second game situation using the second
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007