Ex Parte Matsunaga

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2016

12633381 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2016)

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.
12/633,381 12/08/2009 Hiroshi MATSUNAGA MEN-723-2709 5563
27562 7590 12/15/2016
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
ILUYOMADE, IFEDAYO B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2016 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
Ex parte HIROSHI MATSUNAGA
Appeal 2016-003058
Application 12/633,381
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 3—24, which are all the claims pending and rejected
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
information processing. See generally Spec. 1.
Appeal 2016-003058
Application 12/633,381
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A non-transitory storage medium storing an information
processing program, wherein said information processing
program causes a computer of an information processing
apparatus to perform functionality comprising:
detecting a coordinate position on a screen on the basis of
a signal from a coordinate input device to be operated by a user;
detecting a barycentric position of said user on the basis
of a signal from a barycentric position detecting device; and
performing predetermined processing when the detected
coordinate position is determined to be located within a first
area at a substantially same time that the detected barycentric
position is determined to be located within a second area.
References and Rejections
Claims 1 and 3—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 2008/0261696 Al; pub. Oct. 23, 2008) and
Onda (US 2002/0055383 Al; pub. May 9, 2002).
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.1
1 To the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
2
Appeal 2016-003058
Application 12/633,381
Claim 1
Appellant contends Onda does not teach “performing predetermined
processing when the detected coordinate position is determined to be located
within a first area at a substantially same time that the detected barycentric
position is determined to be located within a second area,” as recited in
claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 2—3. In
particular, Appellant asserts “Onda does not detect a barycentric position of
a player, nor is Onda detecting a coordinate position on a screen.” App. Br.
11; see also App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2—3.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Because the Examiner relies
on the combination of Yamazaki and Onda to teach the disputed claim
limitation, Appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking Onda
individually. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). The Examiner finds—and Appellant does not dispute—Yamazaki
teaches “detecting a coordinate position on a screen on the basis of a signal
from a coordinate input device to be operated by a user; detecting a
barycentric position of said user on the basis of a signal from a barycentric
position detecting device.” See Final Act. 3. Therefore, the combination,
and Yamazaki in particular, teaches “detecting a coordinate position on a
screen” and “detecting a barycentric position.” As a result, Onda does not
need to teach such claim elements separately.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 14—16. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
3
Appeal 2016-003058
Application 12/633,381
corresponding dependent claims 3—13, 21, 22, and 24, which Appellant does
not argue separately.
Separately Argued Dependent Claims
Regarding dependent claims 17—20, Appellant contends Onda does
not teach “wherein the predetermined processing is performed by
simultaneously using the detected coordinate position and the detected
barycentric position.” See App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4. In particular, Appellant
advances arguments similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1.
See App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4. As discussed above, such arguments are
unpersuasive. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17—
20.
Regarding dependent claim 23, Appellant contends Onda does not
teach “wherein the first area and the second area are located in a same area.”
See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 5. In particular, Appellant advances arguments
similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 14;
Reply Br. 5. As discussed above, such arguments are unpersuasive.2
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.
2 The Examiner finds—and Appellant does not offer any substantive
argument to dispute—Onda teaches “located in the same area.” See Final
Act. 16, Ans. 21.
4
Appeal 2016-003058
Application 12/633,381
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—24.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5