Appeal 2007-2005
Application 10/066,110
1 Yoshida, fig. 3 clearly shows that the processes embodying the game aide
2 output signals that are input to the processes embodying the game itself (FF02).
3 Thus, in Yoshida, the game aide and the interactive game are separate to the extent
4 that the output signals of the game aide are input to the game, and we therefore
5 cannot find reversible error in the Examiner’s findings.
6 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-18, 21, and 22
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yoshida.
8
9 Claims 23, 24, 28, and 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
10 Yoshida.
11 The Examiner has argued the notoriety of using multiple processors for certain
12 applications where the workload can be divided to avoid processing bottlenecks,
13 supra. Thus, the Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
14 ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that they could separate
15 the processor in the game platform device into a separate "game aid" device that is
16 connected between a first input device and the game platform device. Yoshida
17 provides direct evidence of this notoriety in its own exploitation of specialized
18 processors to take on portions of the processing (FF03). Thus, Yoshida provides
19 evidence of a known problem of needing to share processing among specialized
20 processors and the solution of putting this processing in a separate processor that is
21 inserted within the overall process.
22 The claims would be invalid under §103 if the Examiner has provided “some
23 articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
24 conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82
25 USPQ2d 1385, (point cite) (2007) (quoting Kahn). For the foregoing reasons, we
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013