Ex Parte MATSUNAGA et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 4, 2016

13277561 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

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