Appeal 2007-2005
Application 10/066,110
1 ISSUES
2 The Examiner finds that Yoshida discloses a method for enabling a user to
3 interact with an electronic game. Its game aid receives an output from a first
4 player. Data regarding a current state of the electronic game is received by the
5 game aid. One or more game input signals based on the current state of the
6 electronic interactive game and the output from the first player are generated by the
7 game aid. The one or more game input signals provide game-specific optimization
8 data for the electronic interactive game. (Answer 4). The Examiner states that no
9 patentable weight is afforded the preamble limitation of separation between the
10 game aide and the interactive game in method claim 15. (Answer 5).
11 The Examiner admits that Yoshida lacks a separate game aid device that is
12 operatively connected between the first input device and the game platform device
13 in system claim 23. The Examiner contends that that deficiency is overcome
14 because although Yoshida discloses that the CPU in the game platform device
15 performs all the calculations to generate the game signals, whether or not the CPU
16 is in the game platform device or a separate processing device does not affect the
17 overall outcome of the invention in that it still optimizes the game data for the
18 player no matter where the processing is conducted. The Examiner contends that
19 using multiple processors for certain applications where the workload can be
20 divided to avoid processing bottlenecks. Thus, the Examiner concludes that it
21 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
22 was made that they could separate the processor in the game platform device into a
23 separate "game aid" device that is connected between a first input device and the
24 game platform device. (Answer 6).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013