Ex Parte Matsunaga et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 4, 201613277561 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/277,561 10/20/2011 27562 7590 05/06/2016 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hiroshi MATSUNAGA 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-723-3239 3665 EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2016 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, YUGO HAYASHI, KAZUY A SUMAKI, and KEIICHI MINAT0 1 Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Nintendo Co., Ltd., as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 Introduction According to Appellants, "[t]he claims of the present application are directed to controlling a virtual camera based on an orientation of a portable display device and a position of an object in a virtual world." (App. Br. 5.) Further according to Appellants: (Id.) Controlling the virtual camera based on both the attitude of a portable display device and a position of an object in the virtual game world is advantageous in that it allows favorable viewing of a game by allowing the user to control the viewpoint based on the movement of the portable display device. Exemplary Claims Claims 1 and 19, reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, are exemplary of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein an information processing program executed on a computer of an information processing apparatus which is capable of displaying an image on a portable display device which outputs at least attitude data based on an attitude of a body of the portable display device, wherein the information processing program causes the computer to perform functionality compnsmg: obtaining data based on a load applied to a load detection device; causing an object arranged in a virtual world to move based on the obtained data; controlling a first virtual camera which generates an image of the virtual world based on the attitude data and a position of the object in the virtual world; and displaying, on the portable display device, a first image representing the virtual world viewed from the first virtual camera. 2 Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein an information processing program executed on a computer of an information processing apparatus which is capable of displaying an image on a portable display device which outputs at least attitude data according to an attitude of a body of the portable display device, wherein the information processing program causes the computer to perform functionality comprising: obtaining data based on a load applied to a load detection device; controlling a first virtual camera which generates an image of the virtual world, based on the obtained data and the attitude data; and displaying, on the portable display device, a first image representing the virtual world viewed from the first virtual camera. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Abou-Samra et al. (" Abou-Samra") Shimizu et al. ("Shimizu") Miyamoto et al. ("Miyamoto") Rosenberg US 6,416,410 Bl US 2003/0216176 Al US 6,712,703 B2 US 2006/0262120 Al REJECTIONS July 9, 2002 Nov. 20, 2003 Mar. 30, 2004 Nov. 23, 2006 Claims 1--4, 8-13, 15, 17, and 19-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Rosenberg. (Final Act. 4--16.) Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosenberg and Shimizu. (Final Act. 16-19.) Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosenberg and Abou-Samra. (Final Act. 19-20.) 3 Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosenberg and Miyamoto. (Final Act. 20-21.) ISSUES (1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Rosenberg teaches "controlling a first virtual camera which generates an image of the virtual world based on the attitude data and a position of the object in the virtual world," as recited in independent claim 1. (2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Rosenberg teaches "controlling a first virtual camera which generates an image of the virtual world, based on the obtained data and the attitude data," as recited in independent claim 19. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2- 21 ); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 4--29). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for emphasis. 2 2 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this Decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 A. Claims 1--4, 8-13, 15, 17, and 19-253 1. Claim 1 Appellants argue the Examiner's findings are in error because Rosenberg . . . does not control a virtual camera based on ~ position of the object in the virtual world and the attitude data of the game system/controller. That is, while Rosenberg may discuss the controller having motion sensing equipment and a game being played in a first-person view, Rosenberg still fails to explicitly or inherently disclose that the virtual camera in the game is controlled based on the attitude of the controller, let alone both the attitude and a position of an object in a virtual world. (App. Br. 18-19; see also Reply Br. 2--4.) We are not persuaded of error because Appellants' arguments do not rebut the Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of Rosenberg. First, as the Examiner finds, and we agree, Rosenberg discloses the disputed limitation of "controlling a virtual camera which generates an image of the virtual world based on ... a position of an object in a virtual world." (App. Br. 24 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added); Ans. 24.) In particular, the Examiner finds Rosenberg discloses a "first-person view" as a 3 Appellants do not present separate substantive arguments for dependent claims 2, 3, 8-11, 13, 15, or 17, which depend (directly or indirectly) from claim 1, but instead reference the arguments presented for independent claim 1. (App. Br. 16-19.) Appellants also do not present separate substantive arguments for independent claims 20, 22, and 24, but instead argue them collectively with independent claim 1. (App. Br. 16-19.) Appellants also do not present separate substantive arguments for independent claims 21, 23, and 25, but instead argue them collectively with independent claim 19. (App. Br. 19-20.) Except for our ultimate decision, claims 2, 3, 8-11, 13, 15, 17, and 20-25 are not discussed further herein. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 5 Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 "first virtual camera," wherein the camera shows what the user's "avatar"4 sees. (Final Act. 4 (citing Rosenberg i-f 103: "A first person mode is one which the user can view (i.e., via a first-person view) the virtual environment from the vantage point of the avatar itself (for example, through the eyes of the avatar)."; see Rosenberg i-f 5.) Thus, as the Examiner correctly finds, "the virtual camera comprising first- and third-person views in Rosenberg corresponds to the position of an object in the virtual world." (Ans. 24.) Second, as the Examiner further finds, and we agree, Rosenberg also discloses "controlling a first virtual camera which generates an image of the virtual world based on the attitude data . ... " (App. Br. 24 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added); Ans. 24.) In particular, the Examiner finds Rosenberg teaches controlling the avatar "within a virtual environment based on pad sensor signals received from the user interface 104 and/or hand-piece data received from the hand-piece 108 .... " (Rosenberg i-f 31; Final Act. 4; Ans. 24.) As the Examiner further finds, and we agree, Rosenberg also discloses "the hand-piece 108 may further include a hand- piece sensor (e.g., a tilt sensor, an accelerometer, a magnetometer, or the like, or a combination thereof)," wherein "the hand-piece sensor may be used such that the pointing direction of the hand piece, or a portion thereof, is used to control avatar direction during foot-controlled gait activities." (Rosenberg i-f 30 (emphases added); see Final Act. 5 (findings made in 4 Rosenberg discloses that an "avatar" can be an "animated human figure" controlled by the user in a "virtual environment." (Rosenberg i-f 5.) 6 Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 connection with claims 2 and 3 ). )5 Thus, as the Examiner correctly finds, "Rosenberg teaches that the virtual avatar (i.e., virtual character) is controlled based on real world movement." (Ans. 24 (citing Rosenberg i-f 103).) And, as noted supra, Rosenberg teaches that controlling the movement of the avatar based on the attitude of the hand-piece also causes the first virtual camera to appear to move accordingly-at least in first- person mode, because the camera shows what the avatar sees. (See Rosenberg i-fi-130, 31, 34, 38, 103; Ans. 23-24.) In other words, as the avatar disclosed in Rosenberg moves and turns, so will the camera; thus, Rosenberg teaches the "first virtual camera generates ... an image of the virtual world based on the attitude data." Based on the foregoing, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in finding Rosenberg teaches the disputed limitation of claim 1. We, therefore, affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, and also of claims 2, 3, 8-11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, and 24, which Appellants argue collectively with claim 1. (App. Br. 16-19; Reply Br. 2--4.) 2. Claim 19 The disputed limitation of claim 19 is similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1 addressed supra, reciting "controlling a first virtual camera which generates an image of the virtual world based on the obtained data and the attitude data." (App. Br. 24 (Claims Appendix).) The "obtained 5 Appellants' Specification similarly teaches use of an "acceleration sensor" and/or a "gyro sensor" for "calculating the movement (including the position and attitude, or a change in the position or the attitude) of the terminal device 6." (Spec. i-f 110.) 7 Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 data" is recited in claim 19 as being data obtained "based on a load applied to a load detection device." (Id.) Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error because "even assuming the game can be played from a first-person viewpoint of the virtual character, Rosenberg still fails to disclose controlling a virtual camera based on obtained load data and attitude data related to the attitude of a portable display device." (App. Br. 19-20; see also Reply Br. 4.) In particular, Appellants contend Rosenberg discloses only "controlling a virtual character in the virtual world," but "does not disclose controlling a virtual camera." (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 4.) We disagree. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, "Rosenberg teaches that the user 102 sees the virtual environment from the point of view of an avatar that he/she is controlling." (Ans. 26 (citing Rosenberg i-f 24).) The Examiner also correctly finds: Rosenberg also teaches that the pointing direction of the hand piece, or a portion thereof, is used to control avatar direction during foot-controlled gait activities (interpreted as load data in Office Action) .... Additionally, Rosenberg teaches controlling the direction in which the avatar walks/runs based upon the user's engagement with one or more manipulatable controls included within the hand-piece 108 .... Moreover, Rosenberg teaches controlling the avatar based on real world movement, wherein the first- and third-person views act as virtual cameras. . . . Examiner notes that, among other techniques, a first-person view in a game acts both as controlling the virtual character and virtual camera. One of the reasons is because, as discussed above, first-person view (in video games) depicts the viewpoint of a virtual character in a scene. In other words, the virtual camera shows what the virtual character "sees." (Ans. 26-27 (citing Rosenberg i-fi-123, 30, 38, 103).) 8 Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments, which repeat conclusory contentions that are contradicted by the teachings of Rosenberg and, as such, do not rebut the Examiner's findings. In particular, Appellants argue "[a]t best, the virtual camera will coincidentally move with the character but this is not exercising control over the virtual camera." (Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added).) We disagree that such movement of the virtual camera in Rosenberg along with the character is "coincidental[]"; rather, as the Examiner finds, Rosenberg teaches such movement is intentional as part of "first-person view" so that the user can see "what the virtual character 'sees."' (Ans. 27 .) For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 19, and also claims 21, 23, and 25, which Appellants argue collectively with claim 19. (App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 4.) 3. Claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and adds the limitation "wherein at least one of a position and an attitude of the first virtual camera is controlled by controlling a line-of-sight direction of the first virtual camera in the virtual world, the line-of-sight direction being based on the attitude of the portable display device." (App. Br. 25 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).) Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error because: Again, even assuming for sake of argument that the virtual character can be viewed in a first-person view, Rosenberg does not describe controlling a position and attitude of the virtual camera by controlling a line-of-sight direction which is derived based on an attitude of a portable display device. At best, the virtual camera can see a first person view of the virtual character 9 Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 where the character may move based on movements of the hand- piece 108 and/or data from the interface 104. (App. Br. 20.) Appellants then argue "[t]his is not analogous to controlling a line-of-sight direction (to control a position and attitude of a virtual camera) based on the attitude of a portable display device." (App. Br. 20-21.) We are not persuaded by Appellants' conclusory arguments, which are based on premises similar to those underlying Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1 and 19 that we have found to be unpersuasive as explained supra. Rather, we agree with the Examiner's findings that "the handpiece in Rosenberg contains sensors that are capable of relaying pointing direction and orientation information to control 'line-of-sight direction of the first virtual camera in the virtual world'" based on "the attitude" of the handpiece, and further that the handpiece may comprise a "portable display device." (Ans. 27-28 (citing Rosenberg i-fi-130, 100, 103).) We are thus unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 4, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection. 4. Claim 12 Claim 12 depends from claim 1, and adds the limitation "wherein a second image representing the virtual world viewed from a second virtual camera is displayed separately from the first image, on another display device connected to the information processing apparatus." (App. Br. 25 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).) Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error because: [A]s can be seen in Fig. 1, ... Rosenberg's system shows a host computer 110 interacting with a single display device 6. Even assuming that the system can be integrated into a portable device, Rosenberg would still only have one system connected to a single 10 Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 display device. That is, Rosenberg cannot reasonably be interpreted as showing both a portable display device and another display device connected to Rosenberg's allegedly corresponding information processing apparatus. (App. Br. 21-22.) We disagree. As the Examiner finds, and we agree: Rosenberg teaches ... that "the host computer 110 can be a single computer or a number of networked computers." ... An example of such scenario for point (2) is a "LAN party." As understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in a "LAN party," participants with their own devices connect to each other's devices to play the same multiplayer-capable video games in a local area network (LAN). In this scenario, the players share the same gaming environment. In addition, Rosenberg also teaches explicitly that video game players could also, at the time of the invention, play games in multiplayer mode, wherein "users could interact in a shared virtual environment over the Internet." (Ans. 29 (emphases added) (citing Rosenberg i-fi-131 ).) In their Reply, Appellants concede Rosenberg describes "playing over a network," but additionally argue "[w]hile it is true that network will arguably include multiple displays, Rosenberg fails to explicitly disclose that a virtual camera viewpoint on one display will be different than the virtual camera viewpoint on another display." (Reply Br. 6.) We disagree. If multiple players are playing in first-person mode, which the Examiner correctly finds is taught by Rosenberg (e.g., Ans. 27), then, according to Rosenberg, each player will have a different avatar and hence each player's screen will display a different virtual camera viewpoint according to what each avatar "sees." (See Rosenberg i15: "[A]s the avatar navigates the virtual environment, the user controlling the avatar is given the perspective of actually 'being' that avatar, seeing what the avatar sees. Such an 11 Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 environment could include multiple avatars, each controlled by a different person, all networked to the same environment over the Internet." (emphasis added).) For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 4, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection. B. Claims 5-7, 14, 16, and 18 Appellants have not argued the Examiner's rejections of claims 5-7, 14, 16, and 18, which each stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rosenberg and an additional reference (Shimizu for claims 5-7; Abou-Samra for claim 14; and Miyamoto for claims 16 and 18). (Final Act. 17-22.) Accordingly, we summarily sustain those rejections. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02, 8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010 ("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board."); see also In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 12 Appeal2014-005728 Application 13/277,561 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-25 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 )(iv). AFFIRMED lv 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation