Ex Parte Kando

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2013

12076304 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YUJI KANDO
____________

Appeal 2012-000232
Application 12/076,304
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yuji Kando (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-15, and 17-23. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-000232
Application 12/076,304

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
having stored therein a game program executed by a computer
of a game apparatus for generating a two-dimensional game
image representing a state of a three-dimensional game space
acquired by a virtual camera so as to display the two-
dimensional game image by a display device, the game program
causing the computer to function as:
a sight point pixel calculator for calculating a sight point
pixel representing a pixel on the two-dimensional game image,
the sight point pixel corresponding to a sight point of the virtual
camera in the three-dimensional game space;
a camera movement controller for moving the virtual
camera in the three-dimensional game space in accordance with
a direction from the sight point pixel on the two-dimensional
game image to a target pixel representing a predetermined
pixel;
a number-of-pixels calculator for calculating a number of
pixels included in a linear distance to the target pixel from the
sight point pixel; and
a movement rate setter for setting a movement rate of the
virtual camera in accordance with the number of pixels
calculated by the number-of-pixels calculator,
wherein the camera movement controller moves the
virtual camera in accordance with the movement rate having
been set by the movement rate setter.
See App. Br. Clms. Appx. (emphasis added).

Appeal 2012-000232
Application 12/076,304

3
REJECTIONS
Appellant requests our review of the following rejections. See App.
Br. 10.
Claims 1, 10-15, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2004/0224761 A1, pub. Nov. 11, 2004).1
Claims 3 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nishimura in view of Miyamoto (US 6,454,652 B2, iss. Sep. 24, 2002).
Claims 4, 5, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Miyamoto and Yamamoto (US
6,424,353 B2, iss. Jul. 23, 2002).
Claims 6, 8, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Miyamoto and Suzuki (US
5,736,982, iss. Apr. 7, 1998).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s rejection is based, in part, on the finding that
Nishimura discloses “a movement rate setter for setting a movement rate of
the virtual camera in accordance with the number of pixels calculated by the
number-of-pixels calculator” as recited in independent claims 1 and 15. See

1 The Final Office Action mailed October 25, 2010 (at pp. 2-5) rejected
claims 1, 15, 17, and 22 as anticipated by Nishimura, and (at pp. 5-8)
rejected claims 10-14 and 16 as unpatentable over Nishimura. The claims
were then amended to incorporate the subject matter of dependent claim 16
into the independent claims 1 and 15. See Amendment of Jan. 25, 2011.
The Appeal Brief addresses both anticipation and obviousness. See App. Br.
10-12. The Answer rejects claims as unpatentable over (not anticipated by)
Nishimura. See Ans. 5-11. Nonetheless, the arguments presented in the
Appeal Brief against the anticipation rejection also apply to the obviousness
rejection made in the Answer, so we consider the arguments in that context.
Appeal 2012-000232
Application 12/076,304

4
Ans. 6. In particular, the Examiner found the Nishimura virtual camera
“move[s] at a predetermined ratio of total distance between camera and
player in order to keep an optimal distance (i.e. point of regard).” Id. (citing
Nishimura, figs. 5-7 and 9, and paras. [0010], [0056]-[0057], and [0060]).
Appellant argues this analysis was in error. See App. Br. 12.
The Nishimura passages cited by the Examiner pertinently disclose a
“virtual-camera-location updating means” which moves the camera to
follow a location of a player character. Nishimura, para. [0010]. The
updating means operates to move the camera to shorten the distance between
the player character location and an initial point-of-regard location
designating a photographing direction of the camera. See id. paras. [0010]
and [0056]. Specifically, the updated point-of-regard for the camera is
determined to shorten the distance by a predetermined ratio. See id. paras.
[0010], [0057], and [0060].
Figures 4 and 5 provide a step-by-step illustration of the Nishimura
camera location updating means. See id. paras. [0062] and [0066]. Thus,
Figure 5(A) shows an initial state of the game where the character 82 is not
moving, and the camera 84 is arranged at a predetermined horizontal
distance “d” away from the character 82. See id. paras. [0062] and [0068].
In that initial state, the camera’s point of regard is coincident with the
character’s location. See id. Figure 5(B) illustrates the character 82 moving
a horizontal distance “Δd” away from the camera 84, so that the camera 84
must move to maintain the character 82 within the camera’s point-of-regard.
See id. paras. [0069]-[0070]. The movement of the camera 84 is achieved
by first calculating Δd, which is equal to the distance between the
character’s new location and the camera’s initial point-of-regard. See id.
Appeal 2012-000232
Application 12/076,304

5
para. [0072]. As shown in Figure 5(C), the camera 84 is then moved to
reduce that distance Δd by the predetermined ratio, thus bringing the
camera’s point-of-regard closer to the character’s new location. See id.
paras. [0073]-[0077] (illustration demonstrates a predetermined ratio of
eighty (80) percent). Once the camera 84 has been moved to that new
position, the position of the player character 82 is re-determined, and the
camera 84 moved as necessary. See id. paras. [0080]-[0083].
According to the Examiner’s application of claims 1 and 15 to
Nishimura, the claimed “sight point pixel” corresponds to the initial point-
of-regard of the camera 84, the claimed “target pixel” corresponds to the
new location of the character 82, and the claimed “number-of-pixels” is Δd.
See Ans. 5-6. Thus, the “movement rate setter” claim limitation requires
setting a “movement rate” of the camera 84 “in accordance with” Δd.
The Examiner concluded the “movement rate setter” claim limitation
is met by Nishimura simply because the camera’s 84 point-of-regard is
moved a distance which is calculated as a predetermined ratio of the
distance Δd. See Ans. 6. We disagree with that conclusion. Calculating a
distance is not the same thing as calculating a “movement rate” by which the
camera is translated or rotated to cover that distance. A “movement rate”
must consider both the distance moved and the time it takes for the
movement to occur. See, e.g., Substitute Spec. filed Aug. 12, 2010,
paras. [0007] and [0026]-[0027] (differentiating between distance moved
and rate of movement). That is, in order to disclose the “movement rate
setter” limitation, Nishimura must disclose using the magnitude of the initial
gap Δd to determine how fast the camera moves in order to change its point-
of-regard. The Examiner therefore erred in concluding Nishimura meets the
Appeal 2012-000232
Application 12/076,304

6
“movement rate setter” claim limitation simply because the distance by
which the camera’s 84 point-of-regard is moved is calculated from Δd.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine the Examiner’s findings
before us for review fail to establish that Nishimura discloses the movement
rate setter limitation of independent claims 1 and 15. In considering
dependent claims 3-6, 8, 10-14, and 17-23, the Examiner does not rely on
Miyamoto, Yamamoto, or Suzuki as being pertinent to that claim limitation.
See Ans. 11-17. We therefore do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 3-6,
8, 10-15, and 17-23 as unpatentable over the prior art.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-15, and 17-23 as unpatentable
over the prior art are each:
REVERSED

tkl