Ex Parte Okamoto et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 22, 2016

11570296 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

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