Ex Parte Okamoto et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 22, 201611570296 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111570,296 12/08/2006 40854 7590 09/26/2016 RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP 38210 GLENN A VENUE WILLOUGHBY, OH 44094-7808 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Koji Okamoto 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. NIS-17103 9517 EXAMINER HENRY, THOMAS HAYNES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3717 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2016 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): 40854@rankinhill.com spaw@rankinhill.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KOJI OKAMOTO and HACHITARO SATO Appeal2014-005625 Application 11/570,296 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Koji Okamoto and Hachitaro Sato (Appellants)1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Action dated April 11, 2012 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zur (US 5,833,549, issued November 10, 1998) and Okitsu (US 6,394,894 Bl, issued May 28, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Konami Digital Entertainment Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-005625 Application 11/570,296 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to "a game apparatus for playing a virtual or simulation game." Spec. 1. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and is reproduced below, with emphasis added. 1. A game apparatus for playing a virtual or simulation game compnsmg: a game tool to be operated by a game player in a three dimensional space; motion signal generation means for detecting a motion of the game tool in the three dimensional space and outputting a motion signal according to the detected motion; image display means having a function of determining a movement of a movable object such as a ball displayed, based on the motion signal, on a screen where no character, which plays on the screen in place of the game player, is displayed; motion determination means for determining, based on the motion signal, whether or not a predetermined proper motion has been made by the player with the game tool in the three dimensional space; operation timing determination means for determining timing at which the game tool is operated as the operation timing based on the motion signal and outputting a change command for changing a moving direction of the movable object based on an advance or delay of the operation timing from a predetermined reference timing; and moving-direction change means for giving a command to the image display means to output a video signal by which the moving direction of the movable object displayed on a screen is changed in accordance with the change command, the image display means further having a function of displaying movement of an imitated image of the game tool on 2 Appeal2014-005625 Application 11/570,296 the screen to confirm that the proper motion of the game tool has been made when the motion determination means determines that the proper motion of the game tool has been made and a function of changing the moving direction of the movable object displayed on the screen in accordance with the change command. ANALYSIS The Examiner found, with respect to independent claim 1, that Zur discloses the claimed game element, except that "Zur does not disclose displaying movement of an imitated image of the game tool on the screen to confirm that the proper motion of the game tool has been made when the motion determination means determines that the proper motion of the game tool has been made." Final Act. 3. Instead, according to the Examiner "Zur discloses displaying movement of a ball in order to indicate that a proper motion has been made." Id. The Examiner found that "Okitzu discloses movement of the imitated image of the game tool to indicate that the proper motion has been made." Id. (citing Okitsu, Figs. 6, 9). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious "to combine Zur with Okitsu in order to allow for the player to have an avatar within the game environment, so as to increase the fun and realism of the game." Id. Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed combination would not result in the game apparatus called for in claim 1 where no character that plays on the screen in place of the game player is displayed. Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellants contend that "[i]n the baseball game of Okitsu, a bat, a helmet, and hands holding the bat are displayed on the screen to imply that a batter stands in a batter's box." Id. Appellants argue that "the 3 Appeal2014-005625 Application 11/570,296 combination of Okitsu and Zur will merely result in a conventional game apparatus that displays on the screen a character that plays the game in place of the real game player (or an implication thereof)." Id. The Examiner responds that "Okitsu is relied upon as a secondary baseball game (using a different input device setup) which displays the baseball bat on the screen (without displaying a player character)." Ans. 2. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Appellants that the combined teachings of Zur and Okitsu would not result in the claimed game apparatus in which "no character, which plays on the screen in place of the game player, is displayed." In particular, we find that Okitsu displays a player character on the screen. Okitsu discloses: The operation of releasing the R trigger switch 223 imitates, as closely as possible, the operation of the batter character, who has been taking a back swing until this point, starting to swing the bat in a forward direction. If the CPU 501 judges YES (the R trigger switch has been released) at step S 109, then the CPU 501 instructs a display of a series of swing operations performed by the batter character (step S 110). Okitsu, col. 18, 11. 13-20 (emphasis omitted). Thus, in Okitsu, the batter character on the screen is displayed as swinging the bat in place of the actual game player. Further, in Okitsu, the movement of the bat does not confirm that the proper motion of the game tool has been made. Rather, Okitsu discloses that "a bad course or good course selected by the batter is reflected in the result of the hit." Id. at col. 22, 11. 8-9. We understand this disclosure to mean that 4 Appeal2014-005625 Application 11/570,296 in Okitsu, similar to Zur, the player can determine the appropriateness of the swing by the display of the image of the trajectory of the batted ball. We do not understand "an imitated image of the game tool on the screen to confirm that the proper motion of the game tool has been made" to encompass a batter character, i.e., an avatar, that is displayed swinging a bat as the game player effects a swing. The language of claim 1 distinguishes between "an imitated image of the game tool" and a "character, which plays on the screen in place of the game player." Further, Appellants' Specification describes a problem in a conventional game apparatus for a virtual or simulation game, in which no character that plays on the screen in place of an actual game player is displayed, is that whether a game tool (e.g., bat) has been operated properly by a game player can be confirmed only by an image of the trajectory of the batted ball. Spec. 1-2. The Specification describes that the game player may incorrectly assume that poor results are due to a problem with a game apparatus sensor or equipment, rather than attributing the poor results to a bad swing. Id. at 2. The Specification describes that the invention solves this problem by indicating, on an image display means of the game apparatus, "that a proper motion has been made in a visibly confirmable representation by various ways such as moving an imitated image of the sports equipment on the screen and changing colors of the imitated image." Spec. 5. In one example, when the motion of the game tool is proper (the game player makes a good swing), an image of the bat on the screen is rotated, and when the motion of the game tool is improper (the game player makes a bad swing), the image of the bat on the screen is not 5 Appeal2014-005625 Application 11/570,296 rotated. Spec. 18-19 (describing steps ST34, ST37 in Fig. 7); see also Spec. 19-20 (describing, with reference to Figure 8, that bat image 69, which is a simulated image of game tool 9 and is displayed in the upper right area of the batter's box on screen 61, moves to a position indicated with a broken line to denote when game tool 9 has been operated properly by the player). The Specification describes that "if the bat image does not move even though the player has swung the game tool 9 within a predetermined time after the pitcher 63 pitched the ball, the player can then know that the swing position of the game tool 9 is not proper." Spec. 20. In another embodiment, the color of the bat image may be changed to indicate that the game tool has been operated properly. Spec. 21. In the game apparatus of Zur, as modified by the batter character of Okitsu, the batter character would be displayed as swinging the imitation bat every time the game player in Zur swings the actual bat, regardless of whether the proper motion of the actual bat has been made. Thus, the movement of the batter character in the modified game apparatus of Zur would not be "an imitated image of the game tool on the screen to confirm that the proper motion of the game tool has been made" as recited in claim 1. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 2-5, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zur and Okitsu. 6 Appeal2014-005625 Application 11/570,296 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 is REVERSED. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation