CAPCOM CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 3, 2021

2020003736 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/320,983 12/21/2016 Kazuki KITAMURA CP_16076US 7283
118426 7590 02/03/2021
IP Business Solutions, LLC
4600 North Fairfax Drive Suite 304
Arlington, VA 22203
EXAMINER
BLAISE, MALINA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
general@ipbizsol.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUKI KITAMURA, HIDEKI HOSOI, YUICHI SAKATANI,
and KAZUKI SAKAKIBARA
Appeal 2020-003736
Application 15/320,983
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Capcom Co. Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003736
Application 15/320,983

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a game device. Claim 12, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A game device comprising:
a virtual space generating unit for generating a virtual game
space zoned by map units, each of which is a square and has a same
size;
a storage unit for storing game sound;
a route searching unit for searching the shortest route from a
sound source to a listener in a game;
a counting unit for counting the number of the map units in the
shortest route between a first map unit where the sound source is
located and a second map unit where the listener is located;
a calculating unit for calculating a distance from the sound
source to the listener based on the number of the map units; and
a sound processing unit for loading the data of the game sound
generated by the sound source from the storage unit and attenuating
the volume level of the game sound based on the distance calculated
by the calculating unit.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kaji US 7,027,600 B1 Apr. 11, 2006
Hyndman US 2009/0240359 A1 Sept. 24, 2009
Kono US 2013/0094669 A1 Apr. 18, 2013
Mehra US 2015/0057083 A1 Feb. 26, 2015
Yoshihito (citation to JP2010-29375 A Feb. 12, 2010

2 Claim 1 in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief is incorrect as it omits
“which is” and “has” in the first limitation. The limitation of claim 1
actually states “each of which is a square and has a same size.” The correct
version of claim 1 is set forth in the Amendment dated July 6, 2018. See
also Appeal Br. 6 (Summary of Claimed Subject Matter).
Appeal 2020-003736
Application 15/320,983

3
the English translation)
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
as being indefinite. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner also rejects various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:
2. Claims 1–3, 6–8, 16, and 17 as unpatentable over Kaji in view
of Hyndman and Mehra. Final Act. 3.
3. Claims 11–13 as unpatentable over Kaji in view of Hyndman.
Final Act. 9.
4. Claims 4 and 9 as unpatentable over Kaji in view of Hyndman,
Mehra, and Kono. Final Act. 11.
5. Claim 14 as unpatentable over Kaji in view of Hyndman and
Kono. Final Act. 12.
6. Claims 5 and 10 as unpatentable over Kaji in view of
Hyndman, Mehra, and Yoshihito. Final Act. 13.
7. Claim 15 as unpatentable over Kaji in view of Hyndman and
Yoshihito. Final Act. 14.
OPINION
Rejection 1: Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10, 16, and 17 as being indefinite,
determining that “[i]t is unclear what the term ‘each’ is referring to, such as
a virtual game space, or map units.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner explains
that “each” can be interpreted as referring to “a virtual game space
Appeal 2020-003736
Application 15/320,983

4
generating unit, a virtual game space, and/or map units,” i.e., “any
combination of the three elements.” Ans. 3.
The Appellant argues that as to claim 1, “one having ordinary skill in
the art would recognize that ‘each of which’ refers to ‘map units’ because
‘map units’ are in the plural form, and ‘a virtual space generating unit’ and
‘a virtual game space’ are in the singular form.” Appeal Br. 14. The
Appellant argues that if “each of which” was intended to refer to a singular
element, “each” would not have been used. Id. The Appellant also argues
that it is sufficiently clear that the phrase “each of which” refers to the map
units because of the location of the phrase, immediately after recitation of
the map units.
We agree with the Appellant. The test for definiteness under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is “whether those skilled in the art would understand
what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.”
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); see also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
As the Appellant points out, recitation of “each” only makes sense with
respect to immediately preceding “map units,” which is plural. Appeal Br.
14. Although in terms of grammar, the Examiner may be correct that “each”
can potentially be interpreted as referring to “a virtual game space
generating unit, a virtual game space, and/or map units” (Ans. 3), there is no
basis in the recited claim elements or the Specification for such broad
interpretation.
In particular, in accordance with claim 1, “virtual space generating
unit” generates “a virtual game space,” which is “zoned by map units.” The
Examiner’s interpretation that allows for the generating unit (a component of
Appeal 2020-003736
Application 15/320,983

5
a gaming device), and the virtual game space generated thereby, to be
“square and of the same size” makes no sense, and lacks any basis in the
Specification. Likewise, such interpretation allowing for the virtual game
space and the map units to have the same size makes no sense in that if they
are the same size, the game space would be zoned by a single map unit
instead of “map units,” such zoning also lacking any basis in the
Specification. In contrast, the Specification provides ample support for the
virtual game space that is zoned or divided into “map units, each of which is
a square and has a same size,” as recited. See Spec. ¶¶ 18, 33, 44–46; Figs.
3, 7(a)–11.
The Appellant relies on the same arguments for independent claim 6,
which includes the same recitation at issue, and relies on dependency of
claims 2–5, 7–10, 16, and 17, in seeking reversal of this rejection. Appeal
Br. 14. Therefore, because we agree with the Appellant that it is sufficiently
clear to a person of ordinary that the phrase “each of which” refers to the
map units, we reverse this rejection.

Rejection 2: Claims 1–3, 6–8, 16, and 17
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 6–8, 16, and 17 as being
unpatentable over Kaji in view of Hyndman and Mehra. Final Act. 3. As to
claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kaji discloses a game device substantially
as claimed, including “a counting unit for counting the number of the units
in the shortest route between a first unit where the sound source is located
and a second unit where the listener is located.” Final Act. 4, citing Kaji,
col. 13, ll. 46–67 (disclosing ƩLx). The Examiner concedes that Kaji does
not disclose “a virtual game space zoned by [a] map and where the sound
Appeal 2020-003736
Application 15/320,983

6
source and listener is located on the map,” and fails to explicitly disclose
map units, “each of which is a square and has a same size.” Final Act. 4, 5.
The Examiner finds that “Hyndman discloses a virtual game space
zoned by [a] map and where the sound source and listener is located on the
map,” and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have “implement[ed] the virtual game space as a map as
disclosed by Hyndman in the unit system disclosed by Kaji in order to
provide a better visual of the virtual space.” Final Act. 4–6, citing Hyndman
¶¶ 7, 37, 38. The Examiner further finds that Mehra discloses a virtual space
that is “split into a grid (e.g., square and same size space) in order to
calculate volumes of scenes,” and concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to “implement[ed] the virtual game space
as a grid as disclosed by Mehra in the unit system disclosed by Kaji in order
to provide a better visual of the virtual space.” Final Act. 5, citing Mehra
¶¶ 78, 109.
The Appellant disagrees and argues that Kaji does not disclose
counting the units. Appeal Br. 15. The Appellant argues that in Kaji, the
virtual game space is divided into rectangular areas, which “are actually
defined by sound characteristic, namely attenuation in propagation of the
sound.” Appeal Br. 15. Referring to column 13 of Kaji, the Appellant
argues that “ƩLx is not the total number of the areas, unlike the claimed
limitation,” and “no part of Kaji teaches counting the number of the areas.”
Appeal Br. 16. We agree with the Appellant.
As the Appellant further explains, in Kaji, “the distances are in
different sizes. In other words, Kaji merely performs computation by
adding up to obtain the total distance between the sound source object Pl and
Appeal 2020-003736
Application 15/320,983

7
the sound receiving point P2,” which differs from the recited counting unit
that counts the number of map units that are square and of the same size.
Reply Br. 2–3. Kaji’s disclosure of ƩLx cannot be mere summation of the
“total number of the areas” because the areas are not the same in Kaji. See
Kaji, Figs. 22, 26, 31, 32. Accordingly, in order for Kaji to provide audio
simulation in according to sounding position and sound field space, it sums
(i.e, calculates ƩLx) “an audio transmission distance characteristic to a
plurality of spatial objects in between the spatial objects in which P1 and P2
exist.” Kaji, col. 13, ll. 64–66; Fig. 26. Thus, Kaji adds together as a sum,
the audio attenuation of each of areas, and at best, discloses or suggests
adding the distances of the areas, which differs from counting the number of
such areas (i.e., map units) as claimed.
The Appellant also argues that Mehra does not explicitly disclose a
grid “with squares having the same size,” and that the Examiner’s finding to
the contrary is speculation. Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 3 (“the shape of each
area can be rectangular.”). The Appellant also argues that “Mehra appears
to teach a spatial grid,” but it does not discuss how the grid is used. Appeal
Br. 16–17. In that regard, the Appellant explains that even if Mehra
disclosed a square grid, Kaji modified by Mehra “would have performed the
same computation [as Kaji], that is, adding up all the distances.” Reply Br.
3. We again agree with the Appellant for the reasons argued. In that regard,
we further elaborate that although the Examiner may be correct that the
generic disclosure of a “grid” supports the finding that each of the grid
elements would likely be of same size, it does not support the finding that
such grid elements would be squares.
Appeal 2020-003736
Application 15/320,983

8
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. The remaining argument of
the Appellant is moot. The Appellant relies on same arguments and/or
dependency in seeking reversal of claims 2, 3, 6–8, 16, and 17. Appeal Br.
18. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection of these claims as well.

Rejections 4 and 6: Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 9 as being unpatentable over Kaji,
Hyndman, Mehra, and Kono, and rejects claims 5 and 10 as being
unpatentable over Kaji, Hyndman, Mehra, and Yoshihito. Final Act. 12–13.
The Appellant relies on same arguments set forth relative to claim 1 and/or
dependency on claim 1 or 6 in seeking reversal of claims 4, 5, 9, and 10.
Appeal Br. 18. Because the Examiner’s application of Kono or Yoshihito
does not remedy the above deficiencies of the combination of Kaji,
Hyndman, and Mehra, we reverse Rejections 4 and 6.

Rejections 3, 5, and 7: Claims 11–15
The Examiner rejects claims 11–13 as being unpatentable over Kaji in
view of Hyndman. Final Act. 9. The Examiner also rejects claim 14 as
being unpatentable over Kaji in view of Hyndman and Kono. Final Act. 12.
The Examiner further rejects claim 15 as being unpatentable over Kaji in
view of Hyndman and Yoshihito. Final Act. 14. These rejections of claims
11–15 do not rely on Mehra.
Claim 11 is independent, and claims 12–15 depend from claim 11.
Appeal Br. 23–24, Claims App. Unlike independent claims 1 and 6, claim
Appeal 2020-003736
Application 15/320,983

9
11 does not require each of the map units be square and of the same size.
Appeal Br. 23, Claims App.
The Appellant does not argue the rejection of independent claim 11
based on Kaji in view of Hyndman. As to claims 12–15, the Appellant
misattributes their dependency as being dependent on independent claim 1
rather than on independent claim 11, and does not argue these dependent
claims separately. Appeal Br. 18. Accordingly, we summarily affirm
Rejections 3, 5, and 7 of claims 11–15.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part. More specifically,
1. The rejection of claims 1–10, 16, and 17 as being indefinite is
reversed.
2. The rejection of claims 1–3, 6–8, 16, and 17 as unpatentable
over Kaji in view of Hyndman and Mehra is reversed.
3. The rejection of claims 11–13 as unpatentable over Kaji in view
of Hyndman is summarily affirmed.
4. The rejection of claims 4 and 9 as unpatentable over Kaji in
view of Hyndman, Mehra, and Kono is reversed.
5. The rejection of claim 14 as unpatentable over Kaji in view of
Hyndman and Kono is summarily affirmed.
6. The rejection of claims 5 and 10 as unpatentable over Kaji in
view of Hyndman, Mehra, and Yoshihito is reversed.
7. The rejection of claim 15 as unpatentable over Kaji in view of
Hyndman and Yoshihito is summarily affirmed.
Appeal 2020-003736
Application 15/320,983

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 16, 17 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–10, 16, 17
1–3, 6–8,
16, 17
103 Kaji, Hyndman,
Mehra
1–3, 6–8,
16, 17
11–13 103 Kaji, Hyndman 11–13
4, 9 103 Kaji, Hyndman,
Mehra, Kono
4, 9
14 103 Kaji, Hyndman,
Kono
14
5, 10 103 Kaji, Hyndman,
Mehra, Yoshihito
5, 10
15 103 Kaji, Hyndman,
Yoshihito
15
Overall
Outcome
11–15 1–10, 16, 17

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART