Appeal 2007-1436
Application 10/390,318
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1-9, 12-23, and 25 as a group (Appeal Br. 4)2. We
select claim 1 as a representative claim and the remaining claims 2-9, 12-23, and
25 stand or fall together with claim 1.
In order to determine the patentability of claim 1 over the cited prior art, the
claim must be interpreted to ascertain its proper scope and/or meaning. Claim 1
recites, inter alia, an “actuator having a top surface displaying the icon that is
moved in a direction normal to the top surface, by a player’s own power, when the
actuator is pressed by the player when actuating the actuator…wherein the
actuator…provides tactile feedback to a player’s finger when pressed by the
player, the physical movement of the actuator when pressed by the player
providing the only tactile feedback to the player from pressing the actuator.” We
find this language requires that the actuator be physically moved under the player’s
power, and the physical movement of the actuator provides tactile feedback to the
player.
The Examiner found that the relief generator buttons of Diederiks are moved
in a direction normal to the top surface by a player’s own power in as much as
Diederiks discloses that a protrusion is canceled or converted into a depression
only when the force exerted by the user’s finger exceeds a certain threshold
(Answer 12). We disagree. Although it is the player pushing down on the relief
with a certain force that causes the gaming device to initiate physical movement of
2 Dependent claims 16, 18, and 19 are rejected in view of an additional reference
but, as noted by Appellant, have not been separately argued.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013