Ex Parte Onoda et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 13, 2010

10936592 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 13, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HIROYUKI ONODA, HIROUMI ENDO, HIROSHI IGARASHI,
JUNJI TAKAMOTO, TAKESHI NAGAREDA, KUNIAKI ITO,
and TAKAO SHIMIZU
____________

Appeal 2009-010500
Application 10/936,592
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-010500
Application 10/936,592

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hiroyuki Onoda et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Okita (US 6,645,067 B1, issued Nov. 11, 2003).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
The Invention
The claims on appeal relate to a subsystem for judging the operation
input data and the sound input data during the execution of a game within a
game system.
Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
14. An input device comprising:
an operation section which detects an operation
performed by a player with respect to a predetermined
operation area;
a sound detection section which detects a sound
generated by a sound input action performed by the player;
an input data generation section which generates
first input data based on the operation detection of the operation
section and second input data based on the sound detection of
the sound detection section; and
an input determination section which compares the
first input data and the second input data, determines that the
first input data is valid when it is determined that the first and
second input data are generated overlapping within a given
period, and determines that both the first and second input data
are valid in other cases.

The Rejections
The Examiner posits that Okita’s disclosure of the calculation of the
degree of matching of the input timing of either the striking of the stick onto
the drum pad or operating the foot pedal, to the display instruction timing
Appeal 2009-010500
Application 10/936,592

3
(displayed as notes) discloses the claimed input determination section which
compares the first input data to the second input data. Ans. 3, citing to
Okita, col. 8, ll. 53-61.
Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s position is in error.
Appellants contend that Okita does not compare any corresponding first
input data and second input data, or determine that the first input data is
valid when it is determined that the first and second input data are generated
overlapping within a given period. Appellants also contend that Okita does
not determine that both the first and second input data are valid in other
cases, as recited in the claims when read in light of the Specification. App.
Br. 13-14. Appellants assert that Okita only compares individual inputs
against a display instruction timing. App. Br. 14. Appellants explain that
Okita provides multiple notes bars that drop down vertical columns
corresponding to percussion instruments and the player must strike the
percussion instrument corresponding to the mark in the column when a notes
bar reaches the reference line. Appellants urge that comparing the inputs
generated from the player striking the percussion instrument to the
corresponding mark when a notes bar reaches the reference line does not
compare two inputs and determine whether the first input is valid based on
an overlap within a given time period. Id.

DISCUSSION
Pertinent Facts
Okita discloses a rhythm game system for performing a musical
rhythm-matching game. Col. 1, ll. 8-12. An operating means 1A includes a
Appeal 2009-010500
Application 10/936,592

4
plurality of mimic percussion instruments, such as drum pads and a foot
drum that will receive input from a striking operation imparted by the player.
Col. 3, ll. 22-35. A display control means 1L displays on display means 1K
multiple types of staging operations for music with each correlated in the
time-axial direction, operations for visually instructing the player to strike a
particular mimic percussion instrument, as well as visually indicating
operation timing instructions indicating timing of the multiple types of
staging operations, viz., when to strike the particular mimic percussion
instrument. Col. 3, ll. 45-50.
An evaluating means 1F has a judging means 1N for judging whether,
during the playing performed along with the music, the input by the
operating means 1A (as a result of the player striking an instrument) is
within a certain time interval, and a staging input evaluating means 1P for
comparing the operation timing of the staging operation means 1A with the
operating timing instruction given by the display control means 1L, thereby
evaluating the input (the player’s strike) from an offset amount. Col. 3, ll.
57-64. This offset manifests as a degree of matching the extent to which the
input timing of striking the mimic percussion instrument matches the display
instruction timing displayed as notes bars 54 on the display means. Col. 8,
ll. 57-61. If the degree of matching occurs within a certain interval, an
evaluation is selected from plural levels, “Perfect,” “Great,” “Good,” or
“Poor.” Col. 9, ll. 3-24. If the degree of matching occurs outside the
interval or the player does not strike at all, then this constitutes a “Miss” and
a miss sound is generated by the system. Col. 9, ll. 24-42. The system
denominates appropriate scoring based on the levels. Col. 10, ll. 12-37.
Appeal 2009-010500
Application 10/936,592

5
Principles of Law
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). To establish anticipation, every element and limitation
of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference,
arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242
F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In other words, “there must be no
difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as
viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.” Scripps
Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.
Cir. 1991).
Analysis
Reviewing the pertinent facts supra, Okita does not compare a first
input data and a second input data and determine that the first input data is
valid when the two inputs overlap within a given period as set forth in the
independent claims. Instead, Okita compares the timing of the mimic
percussion instrument inputs to the display instruction timing displayed as
notes bars 54, in relation to the reference line 55, and determines if the
instrument input is within particular time intervals. This does not appear to
disclose the comparing of two inputs and determining that a first input is
valid when generated within a particular overlap in time with the second
input. As such, there is a difference between the claimed invention and
Okita when viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.

Appeal 2009-010500
Application 10/936,592

6
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19 as
being anticipated by Okita cannot be sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-19 as anticipated by Okita
is reversed.

REVERSED

mls

OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850