Ex Parte Onoda et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesOct 13, 201010936592 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 13, 2010) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation