Ex Parte Hayashi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

13362289 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/362,289 0113112012
27562 7590 07/01/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yugo Hayashi
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SJP-723-3336 1084
EXAMINER
GUO,XILIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/0112016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUGO HAYASHI and KAZUY A SUMAKI
Appeal2015-000907
Application 13/362,289
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-29.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention relates to virtual reality video game control on
a portable display, and specifically, controlling the action of an object and a
1 Appellants identify Nintendo Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
2 Claim 30 also was appealed, but the Examiner withdrew the rejection of
claim 30 in the Answer. Ans. 3.
Appeal2015-000907
Application 13/362,289
virtual camera in the virtual world. Spec. 1. Claims 1, 26, 27, and 28 are
independent. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as
follows:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
having stored thereon an information processing program to be
executed by a computer of an information processing apparatus
configured to display an image on a portable display apparatus
that outputs at least data based on an attitude and/or a motion of
the portable display apparatus body, the information processing
program causmg the computer to perform functionality
compnsmg:
determining, on the basis of the attitude and/or motion
data output from the portable display apparatus, whether or not
a direction of a predetermined axis set in the portable display
apparatus is included in a predetermined range;
controlling, when the direction of the predetermined axis
is included in the predetermined range, an action of an object
placed in a virtual world in accordance with the direction of the
predetermined axis;
controlling, when the direction of the predetermined axis
is included in the predetermined range or present outside the
predetermined range, an action of a first virtual camera, for
generating an image of the virtual world, in accordance with the
direction of the predetermined axis; and
displaying on the portable display apparatus a first image
representing the virtual world viewed from the first virtual
camera.
App. Br. 23 (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
2
Appeal2015-000907
Application 13/362,289
Abou-Samra et al.
Miyamoto et al.
Eto et al.
Nishimoto
Ichiyanagi et al.
US 6,416,410 Bl
US 6,712,703 B2
US 2008/0102951 Al
US 2009/0069096 Al
US 2011/0039618 Al
THE REJECTIONS
July 9, 2002
Mar. 30, 2004
May 1, 2008
Mar. 12, 2009
Feb. 17, 2011
Claims 1-18 and 25-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishimoto and Ichiyanagi. Final Act. 2-36. 3
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nishimoto, Ichiyanagi, and Abou-Samra. Final Act. 36-38.
Claims 20 and 22-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishimoto, Ichiyanagi, and Miyamoto. Final Act. 38--41.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nishimoto, Ichiyanagi, Miyamoto, and Abou-Samra. Final Act. 41--44.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nishimoto, Ichiyanagi, Miyamoto, and Eto. Final Act. 44--46.
ANALYSIS
On this record, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejection of the claims on appeal. We agree with the Examiner that the
3 In one line of the Final Action, the Examiner inadvertantly calls the
rejection "anticipation" under "35 U.S.C. § 102(b)," Final Act. 3, but this
statement occurs under the heading "Claim Rejections- 35 USC§ 103,"
Final Act. 2, and both Appellants and the Examiner argue it as an
obviousness rejection on appeal. App. Br. 14; Ans. 3. We, therefore, review
it as such. Also, the rejection originally included claim 30, but as noted
above (supra at 1 ), the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 30 in the
Answer.
3
Appeal2015-000907
Application 13/362,289
claims on appeal are unpatentable over the cited combination of references,
and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections
from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in their Brief. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We provide the following explanation to highlight and
address specific arguments.
Claims 1-5 and 7-29
Appellants argue all claims other than claim 6 as a group, with claim 1
representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Claim 1 is
directed to a program (stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage
medium) that displays on a portable display an image representing the view
of a virtual world from a virtual camera. App. Br. 23. As recited in the
claim, the program determines "on the basis of the attitude and/or motion
data output from the portable display apparatus" (i.e., how a user moves the
portable display apparatus) whether a "direction of a predetermined axis set
in the portable display apparatus is included in a predetermined range." Id.
The two claim limitations Appellants dispute on appeal both are dependent
upon the direction of the predetermined axis: (1) when the direction of the
predetermined axis is in the predetermined range, the claim requires
"controlling ... an action of an object placed in a virtual world" in
accordance with the direction of the predetermined axis; and (2) the claim
requires "controlling ... an action of a first virtual camera, for generating an
image of the virtual world, in accordance with the direction of the
4
Appeal2015-000907
Application 13/362,289
predetermined axis." Id. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding
Nishimoto and Ichiyanagi teach the aforementioned elements (1) and (2),
i.e., controlling both an action of a virtual object and an action of a virtual
camera under the conditions recited in the claim. We, however, are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
As the Examiner describes, Nishimoto discloses a game controller
with an acceleration sensor that can detect motion in the vertical, horizontal,
and backward/forward directions. Ans. 4 (citing Nishimoto i-fi-f 166-169).
The controller outputs signals when the direction (position) is "within the
predetermined allowable range (e.g., when the controller held by the player
is inclined with respect to the vertical basic position within the
predetermined allowable range)." Id.; Nishimoto i195. These output signals
are utilized by the game calculation section to control actions of both an
object (id. at i-f 195) and virtual camera (id. at i-f 196), as Appellants' claim
recites.
Contrary to Appellants' argument, Reply Br. 3--4, it is immaterial that
Nishimoto does not teach controlling the virtual camera when the direction
of the predetermined axis is outside the predetermined range. Appellants'
claim requires controlling the virtual camera when the direction of the
predetermined axis is in the predetermined range "or" outside the
predetermined range. App. Br. 23 (emphasis added). It does not require
both.
In any event, the argument regarding Nishimoto not teaching the
claimed control of a virtual camera is moot because as the Examiner states in
the Answer, Ichiyanagi teaches controlling the virtual camera regardless of
whether a predetermined axis is within or outside a predetermined range.
5
Appeal2015-000907
Application 13/362,289
Ans. 6. lchiyanagi discloses a virtual reality game in which the controller
and display may be integrated on a single portable device. Ichiyanagi i-f 85.
A virtual camera "control section" controls the position (X, Y, Z) or the
rotational angle of a "virtual camera." Ans. 6 (citing Ichiyanagi i-fi-1120-
121 ). A player's "moving object" also is controlled "within a predetermined
range" based on "previous movement information" about a target moving
object, and "the player's moving object is moved within the moveable
range." Id. (citing Ichiyanagi i-fi-1149-150). Ichiyanagi further discloses an
input that "detects motion" and movement attributes through the use of
sensors in the vertical, horizontal, and forward/backward direction. Id.
(citing Ichiyanagi i-fi-173-77, 97). There is no limiting range for the action of
the virtual camera. Thus, Ichiyanagi teaches "controlling, when the
predetermined axis is included in the predetermined range [and] present
outside the predetermined range, an action of a first virtual camera," as
Appellants argue the claim requires.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-5 and
7-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 6
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches a
virtual camera controlled such that "a direction of a line of sight of the first
virtual camera is the same as a direction of the object in the virtual world,"
as recited in dependent claim 6. App. Br. 19. Appellants contend
Nishimoto, the reference relied upon by the Examiner for this limitation,
fails to teach lining up the line of sight of the virtual camera with the object.
Id.
6
Appeal2015-000907
Application 13/362,289
As the Examiner explains, however, Nishimoto discloses the disputed
limitation. Nishimoto states, the game calculation section "controls the
position (X, Y, Z) or the rotational angle ... of the virtual camera," and that
"when imaging the object" from behind the camera, the virtual camera is
positioned "so that the virtual camera follows a change in position or
rotation of the object." Nishimoto i-fi-f 196-197 (emphasis added); Ans. 5---6.
Appellants do not explain how this teaching in Nishimoto differs from the
disputed claim limitation. We agree with the Examiner's finding that one of
ordinary skill would understand the camera position or angle "follow[ing]"
the position of the object, to teach that the virtual camera and object are in
the same line of sight, as Appellants' claim recites. Id.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nishimoto and Ichiyanagi.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-29 are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
7