11011492 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 17, 2011)

Ex Parte Sawano et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 17, 2011

11011492 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 17, 2011)

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. 11/011,492 12/15/2004 Takao Sawano 723-1599 2723 27562 7590 08/17/2011 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER AHMED, MASUD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3717 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/17/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte TAKAO SAWANO and TATSUHIRO SHIRAI ____________ Appeal 2009-013001 Application 11/011,492 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before: LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-013001 Application 11/011,492 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Takao Sawano and Tatsuhiro Shirai (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Naka (US 5,470,080; issued November 28, 1995). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a game apparatus and program which use two game images concurrently displayed to enhance game quality. Spec. 3, para. [0007]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added). 1. A game apparatus capable of concurrently displaying a first game image and a second game image, different from the first game image, comprising: a selection programmed logic circuitry which selects either the first game image or the second game image; a first action controller which, only when the first game image is selected by the selection programmed logic circuitry, controls an action of a first player object associated with the first game image in accordance with operation by a player; a second action controller which, only when the second game image is selected by the selection programmed logic circuitry, controls an action of a second player object, different from the first player object, associated with the second game image in accordance with operation by the player; an evaluation programmed logic circuitry which evaluates both a result of the action of the first player object caused by the first action controller and a result of the action of Appeal 2009-013001 Application 11/011,492 3 the second player object caused by the second action controller; a first display controller which generates and displays, as the first game image, an image including at least the first player object or an image of a virtual space as seen from a viewpoint of the first player object; and a second display controller which generates and displays, as the second game image, an image including at least the second player object or an image of a virtual space as seen from a viewpoint of the second player object, wherein the selection programmed logic circuitry prevents a simultaneous operation of the first action controller and the second action controller. Independent claim 13 calls for a computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program to be executed by a computer of a game apparatus capable of concurrently displaying a first game image and a second game image, different from the first game image, the game program causing the game apparatus to function as a selection programmed logic circuitry which selects either the first game image or the second game image, a first action controller which controls an action of a first player object associated with the first game image, and a second action controller which controls an action of a second player object, “wherein the selection programmed logic circuitry prevents a simultaneous operation of the first action controller and the second action controller.” Independent claim 16 calls for a game apparatus comprising “a selection programmed logic circuitry configured to mutually exclusively select either the first game instance or the second game instance to receive user input.” Appeal 2009-013001 Application 11/011,492 4 ISSUE Appellants argue that “Naka et al. fails to teach or suggest ‘wherein the selection programmed logic circuitry prevents a simultaneous operation of the first action controller and the second action controller.’” App. Br. 18 (argument as to claim 1); see also App. Br. 25-26 (arguments as to claims 13 and 16). The Examiner found that Naka discloses a game apparatus in which “a single player can play double player game by switching control back and forth to both controllers (col 18, lines 53-62 and lines col 20, lines 29-36). (FIG 25A -FIG28).” Ans. 4. The Examiner further explained that when a competitive double player game is being played by a single player, “then the control program logic circuitry would stop the simultaneous operation of both controller[s], since there is only one controller is [sic] being used at a time by the player.” Ans. 6-7. The Examiner further stated: As stated above by the examiner that if the game is played on a double player split screen mode by a single player, then the element 72 and 74 will be controlled by the player one at a time, therefore the player would switch back and forth to element 72 and 74 to control the game and only one input would be recognized at a time by the game system which would prevent the simultaneous operation of the both screen play. Applicant is not claiming preventing simultaneous operation in a single player mode anywhere in the independent claims. Ans. 9 (citing Fig. 27B (split screen mode) and Fig. 7 (elements 72 and 74)). The issue presented by this appeal is whether Naka discloses a selection programmed logic circuitry which “prevents a simultaneous operation of the first action controller and the second action controller” as called for in claims 1 and 13 or a selection programmed logic circuitry Appeal 2009-013001 Application 11/011,492 5 “configured to mutually exclusively select either the first game instances or the second game instance to receive user input” as called for in claim 16. ANALYSIS Naka discloses “video games that employ a playfield that scrolls relative to a game character in order to show character motion through the playfield.” Naka, col. 1, ll. 13-15. Naka discloses that a challenge associated with video games “is to provide a competition mode in which two players controlling different characters can compete with each other as game characters traverse the playfield.” Naka, col. 1, ll. 47-50. Naka discloses a system that allows two players to compete with each other “by independently controlling a movement of game characters in distinct portions of a split screen display.” Naka, col. 2, ll. 19-21. “In a split-screen mode, two screens are displayed at a time, one for a first video game character and another for a second video game character” where “[f]or each character, the displayed screen corresponds to the portion of the playfield travelled by that character at that moment.” Naka, col. 5, ll. 13-17. First and second external controllers 72 and 74 control the movement of first and second game characters, respectively. Naka, col. 6, ll. 47-53; Fig. 7. Naka discloses that the split screen “advantageously provides the opportunity for full competition between players on each independent scrolling screen” while “the upper and lower scrolling screens can contain the full amount of sprite graphics information.” Naka, col. 16, ll. 15-51; Fig. 27B. Based on these disclosures, we find that Naka discloses a game program that allows Appeal 2009-013001 Application 11/011,492 6 for simultaneous operation of both controllers during competition play of two characters in split screen mode. As such, we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 18, 25-26) that Naka fails to teach or suggest selection programmed logic circuitry that prevents simultaneous operation of the first action controller and the second action controller, as called for in the claims. Even if a single player were to use only one controller at a time for a double player game, as proposed by the Examiner (Ans. 4), Naka’s circuitry is not configured to prevent simultaneous operation of both game controllers, as called for in the claims. In other words, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that when a competitive double player game is being played by a single player, “then the control program logic circuitry would stop the simultaneous operation of both controller[s], since there is only one controller is [sic] being used at a time by the player.” Ans. 6-7. Because the Examiner’s rejection is based on this erroneous finding, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-28 as being unpatentable over Naka. CONCLUSION Naka fails to disclose a selection programmed logic circuitry which “prevents a simultaneous operation of the first action controller and the second action controller” as called for in claims 1 and 13 or a selection programmed logic circuitry “configured to mutually exclusively select either the first game instances or the second game instance to receive user input” as called for in claim 16. Appeal 2009-013001 Application 11/011,492 7 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-28 is REVERSED. REVERSED nlk