Ex Parte Kawamoto et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 12, 201812955183 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 12/955,183 11/29/2010 Koichi KAWAMOTO SJP-723-2944 7018 27562 7590 01/17/2018 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER KUAN, JOHN CHUNYANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2857 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/17/2018 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 KOICHI KAWAMOTO, KANAKO TSUGIHASHI, and RYUTARO TAKAHASHI Appeal 2017-002213 Application 12/955,183 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BRIAN D. RANGE, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15, 21, and 24-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §6. We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2017-002213 Application 12/955,183 Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A handheld information processing apparatus, comprising: a portable electronic device, incorporated within a housing of the handheld information processing apparatus, and configured to generate data associated with physical activity of a user carrying the portable electronic device; and a processing system incorporated within the housing of the handheld information processing apparatus and operatively coupled to the portable electronic device, the processing system having at least one processor and a memory configured to store a plurality of application programs, the processing system configured to: receive the data related to the physical activity of the user carrying the portable electronic device, store the received data in the memory of the handheld information processing apparatus, the stored data being accessible by the plurality of application programs, convert the stored data into a motion data value in correlation with said physical activity of the user, accumulate the motion data value, execute one or more of the plurality of application programs stored in said memory, and utilize the accumulated motion data value in each application program being executed by the processing system. Appellants1 request review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Action (see generally App. Br.): I. Claims 1, 2, 11-13, 15, and 27-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cargill (US 2010/0069148 Al, published March 1 The real party in interest is identified as Nintendo Co., Ltd. App. Br. 3. 2 Appeal 2017-002213 Application 12/955,183 18, 2010), Lucich (US 2007/0218988 Al, published September 20, 2007), and Heppert (US 2010/0125028 Al, published May 20, 2010). II. Claims 4 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cargill, Lucich, Heppert, and Chiu (US 2010/0087250 Al, published April 8, 2010). III. Claims 6-10, 21, and 24-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cargill, Lucich, Heppert, and Nishi (US 2009/0309859 Al, published December 17, 2009). OPINION After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15, 21, 24-28, and 31 for the reasons presented by Appellants. However, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 29 and 30 for the reasons presented by the Examiner. Our reasoning follows. Claims 1, 2, 4—13, 15, 21, 24—28, and 31 We REVERSE. Claim 1 is directed to a handheld information processing apparatus having a processing system configured to store the received data in the memory of the handheld information processing apparatus, the stored data being accessible by the plurality of application programs.2 2 Independent claims 1, 15, 27, 28 (all drawn to a handheld information processing apparatus) as well as independent claims 12 (non-transitory storage medium) and 13 (information processing method) require this disputed limitation. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to independent claim 1. 3 Appeal 2017-002213 Application 12/955,183 We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a complete statement of the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 2-6.3 Briefly, the Examiner finds that Cargill discloses a handheld information processing apparatus comprising a portable electronic device and a processing system that differs from the claimed invention in that Cargill does not explicitly disclose that the processing system stores received data in a memory such that the stored data is accessible by a plurality of the application programs. Final Act. 2—4; Cargill 16, 17, 66 and Figure 1A. The Examiner, however, finds that Cargill’s game server stores received data related to a physical activity of a user carrying the portable electronic device and that the stored data is accessible by the plurality of the application programs. Final Act. 4-5; Cargill 8, 17, 24 and Figure IB. Appellants argue Cargill does not describe the stored data as accessible to a plurality of application programs as claimed because Cargill only describes an ability to use of stored health related activity data in a game or as virtual currency to obtain rewards. App. Br. 20; Cargill 9. As acknowledged by the Examiner, Cargill does not disclose a processing system that stores received data in a memory of the handheld information processing apparatus such that the stored data is accessible by a plurality of the application programs. Final Act. 2—4. While the Examiner reasons that Cargill’s disclosure of using virtual currency to obtain different types of rewards represents using multiple application programs (Ans. 4-5; Cargill ^ 9, 15, 22, 23, 28), the Examiner has not adequately explained how 3 A discussion of the references to Fucich and Heppert is unnecessary for disposition of this appeal because the Examiner did not rely on these references to address the disputed limitation. Final Act. 2-8. 4 Appeal 2017-002213 Application 12/955,183 Cargill’s processing system is capable of storing the received data such that the stored data is accessible by a plurality of application programs as claimed or why it would have been obvious to achieve such an arrangement. Therefore, the Examiner has not made a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15, 21, and 24-31under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above. Claims 29 and 304 We AFFIRM. Independent claims 29 and 30 are drawn to a handheld information processing system. Contrary to Appellants’ assertion (App. Br. 19), claims 29 and 30 do not require the claim 1 feature of a processing system that stores received data such that the stored data is accessible by a plurality of application programs. Instead, claims 29 and 30 are broad enough to read on a processing system executing a single program with respect to the data generated and stored. Therefore, Appellants’ arguments have not adequately distinguished the subject matter of claims 29 and 30 from the device of the prior art. Moreover, Appellants did not contest the Examiner’s specific prior art findings with respect to these claims. Final Act. 10-11; see generally App. Br. 4 Appellants present arguments addressing the rejection of independent claims 10 and 16 together. App. Br. 4-5. Appellants do not present additional arguments for the dependent claims 11-15 and 17-20. Id. at 5. Accordingly, we select independent claim 10 as representative of the subject matter before us on appeal. Claims 11-20 stand or fall with claim 10. 5 Appeal 2017-002213 Application 12/955,183 Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15, 21, and 24-28 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. The Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation