Ex Parte Mizuta

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2017

13424701 (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.
13/424,701 03/20/2012 Masato MIZUTA RYM/723-3394 4993
27562 7590 04/14/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
MUNG, ON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
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 2016-0037731
Application 13/424,7012
Technology Center 2400
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 and 4—22. Claims 2 and 3 have been
canceled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 This appeal relates to Appeal 2015-006580 (Application 13/425,780).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nintendo Co., Ltd. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003773
Application 13/424,701
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a computer game device for outputting the sound
of a sound source in a virtual space (e.g., microphone 62) captured by a
virtual camera (60). Spec. 1 6, Fig. 2. In particular, upon displaying the
captured image of the virtual space, the sound associated therewith is output
based on the direction of a calculated sound source (e.g., microphone 61)
behind the virtual camera, and the calculated volume of the sound in the
virtual space. Id. Ull 1—113.
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 outputting a
sound of a sound source in a virtual space, the program, when
executed, causing the computer to perform operations
comprising:
displaying, on a display device, an image of the virtual
space captured by a virtual camera;
calculating a direction of the sound source with reference
to a first location in the virtual space, wherein the first location
is set based on a location of the virtual camera;
calculating a volume of the sound based on a second
location different from the first location and a location of the
sound source, wherein the second location is set within an
imaging range of the virtual camera; and
outputting the sound of the sound source based on the
calculated direction and volume.
2
Appeal 2016-003773
Application 13/424,701
Kawamura
Suzuki
Chrysanthakopoulos
Inokuchi
Prior Art Relied Upon
June 10, 2004
Aug. 25, 2005
Sept. 26, 2006
Oct. 1, 2009
US 2004/0110561 A1
US 2005/0187015 A1
US 7,113,610 B1
US 2009/0244064 A1
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 4—6, 9-16, 19, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Inokuchi and
Kawamura. Final Act. 3—13.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Inokuchi, Kawamura, and Suzuki.
Final Act. 13—16.
Claims 17, 18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Inokuchi, Kawamura, and
Chrysanthakopoulos (“Chr” hereinafter). Final Act. 17—18.
ANALYSIS
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues the combination
of Inokuchi and Kawamura does not teach or suggest “calculating a volume
of the sound based on a second location different from the first location and
a location of the sound source, wherein the second location is set within an
imaging range of the virtual camera.” App. Br. 13—14. In particular,
Appellant argues that because Kawamura discloses a virtual camera and a
virtual microphone located in the same position, the location of the virtual
microphone is not within an imaging range of the virtual camera. Id. at 14
(citing Kawamura 181); Reply Br. 3^4. This argument is persuasive.
3
Appeal 2016-003773
Application 13/424,701
Kawamura discloses a 3D game world wherein a virtual microphone
(86) is provided together with a virtual camera such that the sound collecting
position and the sound collecting direction indicate respectively the position,
and the direction of the microphone in the game world. Kawamura Fig. 8,
1 66, 81. As persuasively argued by Appellant, Kawamura’s disclosure that
the image character can be moved to a different location by changing the
camera position does not support Examiner’s conclusion that “the location
and the view point of [the] camera can be moved and changed to [a]
different location from virtual microphone.” App. Br. 14 (citing Kawamura
49, 80). In Kawamura, converting the game world from a world
coordinate system does not indicate any change in the respective positions of
the virtual camera and the virtual microphone. Kawamura 1 83.
Accordingly, the evidence before us does not support the Examiner’s finding
that the virtual microphone can be moved within an imaging range of the
camera. Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection is in error. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of claims 4—22,
which also recite the disputed limitations.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 1 and 4—22 are
reversed.
REVERSED
4