Ex Parte Rosenberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 15, 2013

11233563 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2013)

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.
11/233,563 09/22/2005 Louis B. Rosenberg IMMR-0018C
(434701-414)
9673
34300 7590 10/15/2013
PATENT DEPARTMENT (51851)
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1001 WEST FOURTH STREET
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101
EXAMINER
CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/15/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte LOUIS B. ROSENBERG and SCOTT B. BRAVE
____________________

Appeal 2011-010445
Application 11/233,563
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010445
Application 11/233,563
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 20, 21, 23-36, and 43-46. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to a force feedback device for simulating
combat. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An interactive electronic combat game apparatus
comprising:
a processor configured to execute a program of an
interactive combat game, wherein the processor is adapted to
display a graphical environment of a battle on a display device;
a first weapon having a handle configured to be grasped
by a first user, the first weapon moveable in a plurality of
spatial dimensions with respect to the first user;
a sensor coupled to the first weapon and configured to
track movement of said weapon handle in the plurality of
spatial dimensions and provide sensor signals to the processor,
wherein the processor is configured to update a first simulated
object representative of the first weapon in response to the
sensor signals; and
an actuator coupled to the first weapon and configured to
output a haptic effect in response to receiving an activating
signal from the processor after the processor determines a
trajectory of the simulated image is to intersect with a second
simulated object in the graphical environment;
wherein the processor is configured to perform position
control mapping of movement of the first simulated object with
the tracked movement of the first weapon so that movement of
the first simulated object in the environment of the battle is in
response to and based on displacement of the first weapon from
a first location in space to a second location in space.

Appeal 2011-010445
Application 11/233,563
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Venolia
Armstrong
Iwasaki
Chen
US 5,313,230
US 5,589,828
US 5,704,837
US 5,742,278
May 17, 1994
Dec. 31, 1996
Jan. 6, 1998
Apr. 21, 1998

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 20, 26-36 and 43 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwasaki and Chen. Ans. 3.
Claims 21, 23-25 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Iwasaki, Chen, and Armstrong. Ans. 12.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Iwasaki, Chen, and Venolia. Ans. 15.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Iwasaki, Chen, Armstrong, and Venolia. Ans. 16.

OPINION
Each of the independent claims involved in this appeal recites
“position control mapping.” That term is expressly defined in the
Specification: “position control refers to a user object mapping in which
displacement of a joystick handle or other user-manipulable object directly
dictates displacement of a simulated computer entity, so that the
fundamental relation between joystick displacements and computer
displacements is present.” Spec. 35:7-10; App. Br. 13-14. There does not
appear to be any dispute that Iwasaki’s device does not meet this express
definition. Rather, the Examiner states, that “it is [sic] not necessarily
Appeal 2011-010445
Application 11/233,563
4
require reading the ‘position control mapping’ only as described by the
appellant’s specification.” Ans. 17. It is well settled that when an express
definition of a word or phrase is set forth in the Specification, that definition
must be applied when construing the claim. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Where, as here, the Examiner
has done otherwise, that is not in accordance with the law. Thus, we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s rejection on this basis.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

REVERSED

mls