Ex Parte CampbellDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 19, 201110443612 (B.P.A.I. May. 19, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation