Ex Parte Masuda et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2016

12333867 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/333,867 12/12/2008
27562 7590 04/01/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Takumi Masuda
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.
MEN-723-2467 7158
EXAMINER
BRADFORD, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2897
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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
Exparte TAKUMI MASUDA, RYOSUKE KANATA,
YOSHINOBU NAKANO, and MASAHIKO NISHIMURA
Appeal2014-004409
Application 12/333,867
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-29. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants' invention is directed to a computer-readable storage
medium for storing a game program of a game to be played using an input
device such as a touch panel, touch pad or the like (Claim 1) and a game
apparatus implementing the game program (Spec. i-f 1; Claims 22, 24, and
29).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
Appeal2014-004409
Application 12/333,867
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing
computer readable instructions to be executed by a computing system that
includes an input device having a touch screen display that is configured to
detect a touch operation that is performed by a user, and a microphone, the
stored instructions comprising instructions that are configured to:
output an image to the touch screen display;
obtain, from the input device, an input position which corresponds to
an input operation performed by a user at a touched position on the touch
screen display while the image is displayed on the touch screen display;
obtain, from the microphone, an operation sound based on the
performed input operation; and
perform a game process based on the obtained input position and the
obtained operation sound,
wherein the input position is a coordinate input position,
wherein the input position is obtained independently of the operation
sound.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Champagne et al. (US 2007/0077541 Al, published Apr. 5, 2007)
(hereinafter "Champagne") in view of Hardie-Bick (US 2005/0083313 Al;
published Apr. 21, 2005) and Van Genechten (US 2009/0002340 published
Jan. 1, 2009) as evidenced by Cross et al. (US 2003/0234769 Al, published
Dec. 25, 2003) (hereinafter "Cross") and Soss et al. (US 2006/0279553 Al,
published Dec. 14, 2006) (hereinafter "Soss"). 1
1 The Examiner refers to a reference to Lafleur and Tan in the Response to
Arguments section of the Answer in an attempt to provide "further
evidence" to support the rejection (Ans. 4, 6). Appellants argue that Lafleur
and Tan are newly cited in the Answer (Reply Br. 2). We shall not consider
the Lafleur and Tan references in our analysis of the rejection because there
is no excuse for the Examiner not positively including the references in the
statement of the rejection. In re Hoch, 428 f.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA
1970).
2
Appeal2014-004409
Application 12/333,867
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner finds that Champagne discloses a system that outputs
an image to a touch screen display, where the user specifies an input position
of a coordinate input position by touching the image on the touch screen
(Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that Champagne teaches that the input
position is obtained independently of the operating sound (Final Act. 4--5).
The Examiner finds that Champagne does not disclose an acoustic sensor
positioning system. (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that Hardie-Bick
discloses a touch pad that uses a microphone to obtain an operation sound
based on the performed input operation using piezoelectric transducers. Id.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate the
touch location system of Hardie-Bick into the system of Champagne in order
to further refine the location determination or to provide redundancy in the
system (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that Van Genechten evinces that
sometimes redundant systems are needed in touch screen applications. Id.
The Examiner finds that combining Champagne's and Hardie-Bick's system
would provide the sought after redundancy. Id. The Examiner further finds
that Cross and Soss teach that it is known to incorporate piezo elements into
touch screens for both sensing and actuation (Final Act. 4).
Attacking the Examiner's reason for the combination, Appellants
argue that redundant systems do not use both inputs in a subsequent process
(Reply Br. 5). Accordingly, Appellants contend that redundant system
would not use both separately provided inputs in an executed game process.
Id. Appellants contend that if the reason for the combination is to provide a
3
Appeal2014-004409
Application 12/333,867
redundant system, then only one of the systems would use the input
information to determine touch location (Reply Br. 5---6). Appellants
contend that both input from the sound and resistive displays would not be
used in the game process as required by claim 1 (i.e., "perform a game
process based on the obtained input position and the obtained operation
sound"). Put another way, we understand Appellants to argue that the
combined teachings do not teach or suggest performing a game process
based on the positional input from a touch screen and the obtained operation
sound. We agree.
The Examiner does not explain how the applied prior art teaches this
claim limitation (Final Act. 3-5). Claim 1 requires that the input position be
obtained from the input device (i.e., touch screen) as an input operation and
obtaining an operation sound based upon the input operation (i.e., the
operation sound is obtained from the same input operation). Claim 1 further
recites performing a game process based on the obtained input position and
the obtained operation sound. Claim 1, therefore, requires that both the
acoustic sensor (i.e., microphone) and input device (i.e., touch screen)
acquire information that is used in the game process. The Examiner has not
shown where that limitation is taught or would have been suggested by the
prior art (Final Act. 3-5).
As all the features have not been shown to be taught or suggested by
the prior art, we reverse the Examiner's § 103 rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
ORDER
4
Appeal2014-004409
Application 12/333,867
REVERSED
5