Ex Parte SAOTOME

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2018

13945292 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/945,292 07/18/2013
7055 7590 07/23/2018
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hiroaki SAOTOME
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.
P44263 6592
EXAMINER
LE,SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2018 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROAKI SAOTOME
Appeal 2018-001021 1
Application 13/945,292
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest is KABUSHIKI KAISHA SQUARE ENIX
(ALSO TRADING AS SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.)." App. Br. 4.
Appeal2018-001021
Application 13/945,292
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to "provid[ing] a character display device
that can display a character with vigorousness and reality, without changing
the pose of a character, by moving the character as if the character breathes."
Spec. ,r 9. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
for reference (with emphases added):
1. A character display device which displays a character of
an arbitrary pose on a display screen, comprising:
a memory that stores basic behavior information for
controlling a behavior of a virtual skeleton of a character in a
basic pose of the character;
a processor that controls a behavior of the virtual skeleton
of the character in an arbitrary pose based on the basic behavior
information stored in the memory; and
a display that displays the character by modeling the
character based on the virtual skeleton controlled by the
processor,
wherein the arbitrary pose includes any pose of the
character other than the basic pose, the basic behavior
information controls the character to move in the basic pose
without moving the character on a field map,
the basic behavior information comprises an angular
change degree from a reference angle in the basic pose, the
angular change degree being variably controlled in accordance
with a game progression state, and
the basic behavior information controls the character by
repeatedly changing a joint of the character in accordance with
the angular change degree.
App. Br. 30 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-001021
Application 13/945,292
References and Rejections
The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Takahashi US 2003/0003977 Al Jan.2,2003
Naganand Madhavapeddy and Stuart Ferguson, Specialised constraints for
an inverse kinematics animation system applied to articulated figures Vol.
98 PROCEEDINGS OF EUROGRAPHICS (1998). ("Madhavapeddy")
Scarecrow, TF2 Models Tutorials-Animating in Milkshape 3d (1), posted
Feb 1, 2001, hosted by Planetfortress
https://www.quaddicted.com/webarchive/www.planetfortress.com/tf2mod
els/tuto/ms3d sc/tuto ms3d sc6a.htm ("Scarecrow")
Microsoft, Agent State, Microsoft, posted January 8, 2011,
https://msdn.microsoft.com/enus/ library/ms695804(v=vs.85).aspx,
("Microsoft")
Malek, [3DSmax] Animation and Exportation, posted August 04, 2011,
http://zeg2.com/lite/forums/viewtopic. php ?t=463 2, ("Malek")
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in view
of Malek and Scarecrow. Final Act. 4--5.
Claims 3 and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in view
of Malek, Scarecrow, and Madhavapeddy. Final Act. 19-20.
Claims 4, 8, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in
view of Malek, Scarecrow, and Microsoft. Final Act. 27-28.
Claims 7, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in view of
Malek, Scarecrow, and Takahashi. Final Act. 31.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments. We are not persuaded of Examiner error; we adopt the
3
Appeal2018-001021
Application 13/945,292
Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2-15; Ans. 2-15) as our
own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Any arguments
Appellant could have made but chose not to raise in the Briefs are deemed
waived. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has long
been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error
in the examiner's rejections").
A. Independent Claim 1
i. An Arbitrary Pose
Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is in error,
because "neither MALEK nor SCARECROW controls a character in an
arbitrary pose based on basic behavior information for controlling the
character in a basic pose, with the arbitrary pose being any pose other than
the basic pose." App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellant contends "the
Examiner's position ignores and misconstrues the terms arbitrary and any,"
as "the arbitrary pose is submitted to refer to each pose that can be taken by
the character, and not to a single, predetermined pose." Reply Br. 7. In
contrast, Appellant contends Malek "is limited to the custom animation
being added to the standard pose that is specifically selected by the
programmer, such that the custom animation may be incorporated in
sequence between the selected standard pose and another specific pose," and
"such custom animation is not arbitrary, and would not encompass any pose
that can be taken by the character." Reply Br. 8.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. During prosecution, we give
claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
4
Appeal2018-001021
Application 13/945,292
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
"The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification is ... an interpretation that
corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is 'consistent with the
specification.'" In re Smith Int 'l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir.
2017) ( citations omitted).
Consistent with the specification, we agree with the Examiner that
"claim [1] does not specify when or who selects [the arbitrary pose] and 'any
pose of the character' can be [a] single pose. Second, the claim does not
exclude custom animation. The arbitrary pose could be determined in
advance." Ans. 3. Appellant's Specification defines an arbitrary pose as
"different from the basic pose, and may be any pose that can be taken by the
character." Spec. ,r 11 2. Thus we agree with the Examiner that the
limitation-"an arbitrary pose" which "includes any pose of the character"
( emphases added}--refers to any single pose of the character. See Ans. 8.
Further, Appellant provides a definition of arbitrary which includes
"random" (Reply Br. 7); however, another definition of the term is "based
on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by
necessity or the intrinsic nature of something" (Merriam-Webster,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary, last accessed June
28, 2018). Malek, similarly, teaches "now you can edit any frame and it will
2 We note the Specification refers to "arbitrary pose" only through the
Summary of the Invention, and refers to "target pose" in the Detailed
Description. Compare Spec. ,r 11, with Spec. ,r 36.
5
Appeal2018-001021
Application 13/945,292
be saved like you set it, offering you thousands but millions of patterns to
express your creativity!" Malek page 2.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in
finding the claimed arbitrary pose is taught or suggested by Malek's
description of determining a character pose. See Ans. 3, 8-9; Malek page 2
("you will select the pose that follows the standing one").
ii. An Angular Change Degree
Appellant argues "independent claim 1 explicitly recites that an
angular change degree of the basic behavior information is variably
controlled in accordance with a game progression state," and "the Final
Office Action and the Advisory Action do not afford appropriate
consideration of such a variable angular change degree, and ... neither
MALEK nor SCARECROW disclose such a feature." App. Br. 14.
Particularly, Appellant contends "MALEK solely discloses different chest
rotations/positions which are defined in advance by the programmer, albeit
on a frame-by-frame basis" and "SCARECROW solely discloses that joint
positions are set on a frame-by-frame basis." Reply Br. 9, 10.
Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding the
disputed limitations are reasonably taught by the combination of Malek and
Scarecrow's "frame by frame" angle changes. Ans. 10-11; Malek page 2;
Scarecrow page 4. We also agree with the Examiner that Malek's "idle
animation[,] when it is triggered in-game[,] is considered changing game
procession state between idle state and not idle state." Advisory Act. 2; see
also Malek page 2 ("[M]ake sure you know what is each animation (when it
6
Appeal2018-001021
Application 13/945,292
triggers)," and "[t]his is an example of the first standing pose of the death
on-ground animation.").
Appellant's Specification, although not including the phrase variably
controlled, describes that "the difference information read from the joint
management table 50 in step 811 may be prepared in plurality, and may be
changed according to conditions such as the game progression state, the
weather and temperature in a virtual world, and the status of the player
character." Spec. ,r 48. 3 Malek, as found by the Examiner, similarly teaches
that "Goku has to uncross his hands first before shooting kames! also, the
idle animation is a looping one, means that all it[] s frames repeat when it is
triggered in-game, but for example the lock-on animation, only the three last
frames repeat." Advisory Act. 2 ( quoting Malek page 3) ( emphasis added).
Scarecrow also teaches or suggests creating angular changes according to
the game progression state, within the meaning of the claim. See, e.g.,
Scarecow page 3 ("a weaponless idle animation"), page 4; Advisory Act. 2;
Ans. 11.
Thus, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs in finding the claimed angular change degree is suggested by
the combination of Malek and Scarecrow. See Final Act. 11; see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) (internal citations omitted) (The test
for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1.
3 We note that, unlike the other listed conditions, paragraph 48 of the
Specification does not provide examples of a game progression state.
7
Appeal2018-001021
Application 13/945,292
B. Dependent Claims 14, 18, 20
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in relying on Scarecrow for
teaching the limitations of dependent claim 14, which recites "the basic
behavior information further comprises a necessary frame number for
moving the joint of the character in the basic pose in accordance with a
maximum angular change degree." App. Br. 24. Appellant asserts that
"SCARECROW merely discloses that all joints must be in a certain position
in a final frame. SCARECROW does not, however, include any disclosure
relating to a necessary frame number." App. Br. 24--25.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the necessary
frame number to be taught or suggested by the combined references. See
Ans. 17-19. Scarecrow discloses "[f]rames are the segments which an
animation is divided into," such as 24 frames per second for animation, and
"[a]t the moment, we are making an 'idle' animation for a player model so
we will use 30 frames." Scarecrow page 2. Appellant does not challenge
the Examiner's citation to Madavapeddy, which teaches "[w]e must also
specify angular limits about each of the axes." Madavapeddy section 3.2;
Final Act. 25. Thus, Appellant does not show the combined teachings of the
references are reasonably distinguishable from the claimed necessary frame
number. See Final Act. 23-25; see also Spec. ,r 3 7 ("the number of frames
necessary for the change (hereinafter, referred as the necessary frame
number)").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim
14, and dependent claims 18 and 20 which are not separately argued. See
App. Br. 24.
8
Appeal2018-001021
Application 13/945,292
C. Dependent Claim 4, 8, 10, and 12
Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 4 is in
error, because "MICROSOFT is related to an animation service which plays
certain animations corresponding to certain states," whereas "MALEK
appears to disclose that the arms-crossed pose is specifically edited by the
programmer for the animation pose." App. Br. 25-26. Appellant contends
that, "in view of MALEK relating to 'custom' animations, it is submitted
that MALEK teachings against merely applying the different animations of
MICROSOFT for the animation pose." App. Br. 26.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. The Examiner finds Malek
does not discourage the solution claimed:
Although, MALEK relating to "custom" animation, but it is not
against applying the different animation of MICROSOFT for the
animation pose since applying the different animation of
MICROSOFT into MALEK to automatically play certain
animations and it can provide more improvement for certain
animation of MALEK's for example animated blink, visible
breath.
Ans. 22. We agree; Malek teaches working with "character[ s] that are
already animated" and using "bipedal default animations." Malek page 1
( emphasis omitted).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim
4, and dependent claims 8, 10, and 12, for which Appellant presents similar
arguments. See App. Br. 27.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claim 1 and
dependent claims 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 20. Appellant advances no further
9
Appeal2018-001021
Application 13/945,292
substantive argument on the remaining claims. See App. Br. 22-25, 28.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims for the
same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10