Ex Parte Campbell

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 19, 2011

10443612 (B.P.A.I. May. 19, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEFFERY T. LIMBACK and DYLAN F. JOBE1
____________

Appeal 2009-013532
Application 10/443,612
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 After the Board issued the Appeal Docketing Notice, Technology Center
3700 acted upon the Petition to Correct Inventorship. Accordingly, the
Appellants are Jeffery T. Limback and Dylan F. Jobe and the Real-Party-In-
Interest is Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc.
Appeal 2009-013532
Application 10/443,612

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants state within the Notice of Appeal, filed Sep. 21, 2007, that
“[a]pplicant hereby appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
from the last decision of the examiner.” In the Appeal Brief, on page 4, filed
Feb. 21, 2008, Appellants acknowledge that claims 1-11, 14-31, 36, and 37
are pending. The Examiner has twice-rejected claims 1-11, 14-31, 36, and
37. “The Appellants have elected to appeal only the rejection of claims 1, 6,
11, 17, 22, 26, 31, 36, and 37.” App. Br. 4. As such, Appellants have
demonstrated a clear intent not to pursue the appeal as to all of the twice-
rejected claims. We find that the Notice of Appeal is silent as to the specific
claims being appealed and the Appeal Brief clearly states that not all of the
twice-rejected claims are being appealed. Accordingly, the Board does not
have jurisdiction as to the non-appealed claims and we suggest that the
Examiner cancel the non-appealed claims upon return of the application to
the Examiner. See Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478 (BPAI 2008). As to
claims 1, 6, 11, 17, 22, 26, 31, 36, and 37, we have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

The Invention
The claims on appeal relate to systems and processes for utilizing
line-of-sight (LOS) volumes in a game environment. Spec. 1, para. [0002].

Appeal 2009-013532
Application 10/443,612

3
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for utilizing line-of-sight vectors in a
game environment, comprising:
calculating a line-of-sight vector in the game
environment, wherein the line-of-sight vector is
defined by a position of a game environment
camera with respect to a position of an object in
the game environment;
determining whether the line-of-sight vector is
intersected in the game environment by a plane of
a game element corresponding to a line-of-sight
volume; and
replacing the game element that intersects the
line-of-sight vector with a line-of-sight volume
corresponding to the game element.

OPINION
The Examiner’s rejection that is before us for review is one of
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) against the aforementioned claims
given Rieder (US 5,769,718, iss. Jun. 23, 1998). We have carefully
reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of the arguments from the
Appellants and the response from the Examiner. As a result of this review,
we find that the rejection fails to set forth by a preponderance of the
evidence that Rieder anticipates the claimed subject matter on appeal. Our
reasons follow.
Appellants assert that the terms within the claims must be construed in
light of the Specification. App. Br. 13. Appellants submit that a
lexicographic definition is provided in the Specification for the claim term
line-of-site (LOS) volume. Id. Appellants assert that a clear, deliberate, and
precise definition is set forth in the Specification at paragraph [0017] that
Appeal 2009-013532
Application 10/443,612

4
gives notice to a person having ordinary skill in the art of the meaning of the
term. App. Br. 14. Within the aforementioned paragraph, a sentence states
that “[a]n LOS volume is a three-dimensional representation of a game
element that may replace the game element in the game environment.” Id.
Based on Appellants’ position and the Examiner failing to identify or refer
to another plain, ordinary, or customary meaning, we acknowledge that a
person having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the term LOS volume
as urged by Appellants.
With Appellants desired claim construction acknowledged by us, the
issue becomes whether the claimed LOS volume feature in combination with
it replacing a game element or being displayed when a line-of-sight vector
intersects the game element, as set forth in the claims, encompasses Rieder’s
structures and processes that the Examiner found to anticipate the claims.
The Examiner finds that the claimed limitations of replacing a game
element with its corresponding LOS volume or displaying the corresponding
LOS volume when a line-of-sight vector intersects a plane of the game
element encompasses Rieder’s process of changing the wall or floor,
proximate to the player character, from solid to a semitransparent, so that the
player may view the position of the player character and any other objects
that were hidden from view by the solid wall or floor. Ans. 5 and 6.
Responding to Appellants, the Examiner posits Rieder’s processor replaces
the solid object with a semitransparent object “which still retains its original
‘shape’” and cites to column 7, lines 3-27, to support the position. Ans. 7.
However, the portion of Rieder cited by the Examiner fails to
explicitly disclose that the solid wall or floor is being replaced with a
semitransparent wall or floor. Further, the Examiner fails to provide
Appeal 2009-013532
Application 10/443,612

5
sufficient evidence or technical reasoning for us to find that Rieder
inherently discloses a replacement. Inherent anticipation cannot be
established by probabilities or possibilities, (citations omitted). Also, the
Examiner fails to cogently explain how the Rieder’s disclosure of the player
character’s position specifying unit giving notice that the display position of
the player character coincides with a portion of a wall or floor, such that a
portion of the player character is hidden behind a wall or floor, such that this
wall or floor portion is displayed semi-transparently, equates to the broadest
reasonable interpretation of replacing a game element with its corresponding
LOS volume, as properly construed, or displaying the corresponding LOS
volume when a line-of-sight vector intersects the game element.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, the claimed LOS volume feature in combination with it
replacing a game element or being displayed when a line-of-sight vector
intersects the game element does not encompass Rieder’s structures and
processes that the Examiner found to anticipate the claims. Based on the
foregoing, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation of the claims 1, 6, 11, 17, 22, 26, 31, 36, and 37 as articulated
by the Examiner.

Appeal 2009-013532
Application 10/443,612

6
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6, 11, 17, 22,
26, 31, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Rieder.

REVERSED

Klh