Appeal No. 2006-1942
Application No. 09/795,722
additional motivational analysis to a growth strategy would
further assist a user attempting to maintain predefined goals.”
Appellants’ argument (brief, page 9) that “Byrd completely fails
to describe the use or even suggestion of using a virtual
character or virtual pet whatsoever” is not a convincing
patentability argument since the examiner relied on Brown for
such a teaching. Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claim
83 is sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claim 84 is sustained based
upon the reasoning presented supra for claim 83.
The obviousness rejection of claims 85 and 86 is sustained
because appellants have not presented any patentability arguments
for these claims.
The obviousness rejection of claim 87 is sustained because
the character and appearance of the virtual pet in Brown changes
if it does not receive proper care (column 17, lines 15 through
17).
The obviousness rejection of claims 88 and 89 is sustained
because the tailored information in Brown is “context-sensitive
information” obtained based on the routine of taking care of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007