Ex Parte Mizuta

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2017

13425780 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2017)

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.
13/425,780 03/21/2012 Masato MIZUTA RYM/723-3397 8505
27562 7590 04/14/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
FLANDERS, ANDREW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2017 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 MASATO MIZUTA
Appeal 2015-0065801
Application 13/425,7802
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—21. Claim App’x. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
1 This appeal relates to Appeal 2016-003773 (Application 13/424,701).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nintendo Co., Ltd. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-006580
Application 13/425,780
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a computer game for outputting a corrected sound
of a sound source (52) located behind a virtual camera (60), wherein the
sound is directed towards the front of the camera capturing an audio-video
scene (51) in a virtual space. Spec. 175, Fig. 3. In particular, upon
detecting that the direction of the sound, as viewed from the virtual camera
(60), corresponds to a predetermined direction, a predetermined filter is
applied to muffle the sound, thereby correcting the sound source. Id. Tflf 76,
77, Fig. 12.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
storing an information processing program executable by a
computer of an information processing device for generating an
image of a virtual space captured by a virtual camera and
outputting a sound of a sound source provided in the virtual
space, the program, when executed, causing the computer to
perform:
calculating a direction of the sound source as viewed from
the virtual camera or a predetermined character provided in the
virtual space;
correcting the sound of the sound source by applying a
predetermined filter to the sound when the calculated direction
of the sound source corresponds to a predetermined direction as
viewed from the virtual camera or the predetermined character
provided in the virtual space; and outputting the corrected sound.
2
Appeal 2015-006580
Application 13/425,780
Chrysanthakopoulos
Mizuta-
16, 2013
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 7,113,610 B1
US20130120569A1/
Sept. 26, 2006
May
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—8, 10—14, and 16—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Chrysanthakopoulos (“Chr” hereinafter).
Final Act. 5—11.3
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chr. Final Act. 12.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, and 16—19 stand provisionally rejected on the
ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1, 11, 12, and 14—16 of Mizuta (co-pending application 13/424,701). Final
Act. 13—4.
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 11—16, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—7.4
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues that Chr does not
describe “correcting the sound of the sound source by applying a
3 The rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn. Ans. 11.
4 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 20, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed June
29, 2015), and the Answer (mailed May 7, 2015) for their respective details.
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2013).
3
Appeal 2015-006580
Application 13/425,780
predetermined filter to the sound when the calculated direction of the sound
source corresponds to a predetermined direction as viewed from the virtual
camera or the predetermined character provided in the virtual spaceApp.
Br. 11. According to Appellant, because Chr uses the changing distance
between the virtual sound source and the virtual speakers due to movements
by the virtual listener, Chr teaches using only the magnitude of the vector
between the virtual listener and the virtual sound source to change the
volume for each speaker. Id. at 12 (citing Chr Fig. 4—6). That is, Appellants
contend, Chr teaches using only the magnitude of the vector, as opposed to
the direction of the vector, to correct the sound source due to changes in the
orientation of the virtual listener or virtual speakers relative to the virtual
sound source. Id. at 13. This argument is not persuasive.
We note at the outset that, in contrast to Appellant’s argument, the
claim does not require correcting the sound when the direction of an
associated vector corresponds to a predetermined direction. Instead, the
claim merely requires performing such a correction when the direction of the
sound source corresponds to the predetermined direction. That is, although
the claim requires using the direction of the sound source to correct the
sound, it does not limit such a direction to the use of the direction
component of a vector.
Chr discloses a virtual source positioning system including a plurality
of speakers that track the position and orientation of a virtual listener relative
to a sound in a virtual environment. Abstr. In order to compute the volume
attenuation when the listener has moved or changed direction, Chr utilizes
the orientation angle of the virtual listener (Fig. 6, item 354) to rotate the
speakers by an equivalent angle, and subsequently determines the virtual
4
Appeal 2015-006580
Application 13/425,780
speaker vectors associated therewith. Chr. 8:45—67. Further, Chr discloses
determining the Cartesian coordinates of the virtual sound source and the
listener as a way to represent the changing position of the listener and the
speakers relative to the sound source. Chr 10:13—31. Although Chr
indicates normalizing the virtual sound source vector through a division of
each Cartesian coordinate component by the magnitude of the vector, Chr
also recognizes that the magnitude of vector depends on the orientation of
the listener relative to the virtual source. Chr. 10:37-44. Thus, albeit Chr
discloses using the speaker vector magnitude in the computation of the
volume attenuation, the volume attenuation also implicates the orientation of
the user because the magnitude is based on the listener’s orientation relative
to the virtual sound source. Accordingly, Chr’s disclosure of correcting the
volume when the listener has moved or changed direction such that the
direction of the listener corresponds to the speakers relative to the sound
source describes the disputed limitation.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Chr. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, as well
as the rejection of independent claims 16—19, which Appellant argues are
patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 14. Because Appellant does not
make separate arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 2, 5—8,
11—14, 20 and 21, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of those
claims as well. See id.', 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding claim 3, Appellant argues that Chr does not describe the
sound is corrected when the calculated angle is greater than a first threshold.
App. Br. 15. We are persuaded. Although Chr’s disclosure of volume
5
Appeal 2015-006580
Application 13/425,780
adjustment involves determining that the virtual speakers are moved by an
equivalent orientation angle when the listener has changed orientation, Chr
does not indicate a particular relationship between a calculated angle and a
predetermined threshold. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Appellant argues that Chr does not describe
increasing the degree of correction of the sound with an increase in a
calculated angle. App. Br. 15. We are persuaded. Although Chr discloses
using the orientation as a factor to determine how to adjust the volume, Chr
does not describe a proportional relationship between the size of an
orientation angle and the degree of adjustment of the volume. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4, as well as claim 10 depending
therefrom.
35 U.S.C. §103 Rejection
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claim 15, Appellant has not
provided separate argument. Therefore, we are not persuaded of error, and
sustain the rejection.
Double Patenting Rejection
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not made a prima facie case
for the provisional double patenting rejection because the office action does
not present any analysis to support the rejection consistent with MPEP § 804
(III)(B)(1). App. Br. 15—16. This argument is persuasive. Consequently we
do not sustain the rejection.
6
Appeal 2015-006580
Application 13/425,780
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claim 1, 2, 5—8, 11—14, and 16—21. Likewise, we affirm the obviousness
rejection of claim 15. However, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 3, 4, and 10, as well as the double patenting rejection of
claims 1, 6, 7, 8, and 16—19.
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-IN-PART
7