Ex Parte Sobue

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 8, 2011

10108701 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SEIJI SOBUE
____________

Appeal 2009-009548
Application 10/108,701
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

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 2009-009548
Application 10/108,701

2
Seiji Sobue (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 15-23, and 25-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Rutgers (US 6,241,609 B1, iss. Jun. 5,
2001) and claims 4, 7, 12-14, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rutgers in view of Kawazu (US 6,454,653 B1, iss. Sep.
24, 2002).2 Claims 31-34 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
The Invention
The claims on appeal relate to a system and process for switching a
game screen display such that all characters located within a certain range
from a position where an encounter has arisen are displayed on a field screen
upon the satisfaction of a certain requirement. Spec. 7, l. 24 to Spec. 8, l. 3.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method of switching a game screen
displayed to each of a plurality of players who
controls an associated character in a game,
comprising the steps of:
preparing a first game screen showing at
least a part of a first field in which at least a first
character controlled by a first player and a second
character controlled by a second player among the
plural characters are displayed;
displaying the first game screen to at least
the first player and the second player;

2 Our review of the Examiner’s ground of rejection is based upon the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed Dec. 13, 2007. Two previous Examiner’s
Answers were returned to the Examiner by the Appeal Center to correct
formalities within the Answer.
Appeal 2009-009548
Application 10/108,701

3
detecting an encounter between the first
character and the second character on the first
game screen;
defining a second field having a
predetermined range in the first field so as to
include the first character and the second character,
when the encounter is detected;
subsequently detecting whether a third
character controlled by a third player among the
plurality of players is in the defined second field;
preparing a second game screen in which the
detected characters existing in the second field are
displayed; and
displaying the prepared second game screen
to the players who control the characters in the
second field,
wherein at least the first player and the third
player are human, and
wherein the second game screen displays a
part of the first game screen in an enlarged
manner.

OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the
arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner. We find that claims 1-3, 5, 6,
8-11, 15-23, and 25-30 are novel over Rutgers. We further reach the
conclusion that claims 4, 7, 12-14, and 24 are nonobvious in view of Rutgers
and Kawazu. Our reasons follow.
A proper finding of anticipation requires a showing that each element
or limitation in a claim is present in the cited reference, either explicitly or
inherently, and that the elements are arranged in the same manner as in the
claim under review. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Appeal 2009-009548
Application 10/108,701

4
Here, the claims require preparing a second game screen in which
three detected characters that exist in the second field are displayed.
Rutgers discloses a multi-user interactive virtual environment system.
Abstract. Each cursor (character) has an interaction zone of a predetermined
size and shape. Id. and Figure 7 (reference numerals 200 and 220). When
the respective interaction zones of two characters overlap, their respective
virtual cameras are controlled to move from a first-person viewpoint (over
the shoulder) to a third-person viewpoint for as long as the overlap remains.
Abstract. Rutgers discloses the mechanics of switching camera movement
caused by the overlapping interaction as follows infra and as illustrated in
Figures 12-15.
The camera positions that frame the players’ views of the encounter
are defined by the merger of the players’ interaction zones. As shown in
Figure 12, any camera position that shows both characters 100 and 130 lies
within area 160, which is known as the 180° space. The 180° space is
divided into two quarters to which the camera for each character is restricted
to take a position along an associated camera curve as illustrated in Figure
13 by the dashed arc. As shown in Figure 13, across the curve (dashed arc),
the camera 110 for character 100 may move from a third person point of
view at position C, to an offset over-the-shoulder view at position B, to a
first person point of view at position A. Col. 6, ll. 37-62. Character 130 in
Figure 13 will have its own camera and respective position as described
above with character 100.
When characters 100 and 130 meet, their camera curves will be
opposed to each other as described in the preceding paragraph. As shown in
Figure 14, when a third character 170 is outside of the 180° space, the space
Appeal 2009-009548
Application 10/108,701

5
between characters 100 and 130 is not affected by the third character.
However, when third character 170 interacts with either character 100 or
130, the 180° space, described above, shifts to encompass the interacting
pair. As shown in Figure 15, the 180° space has shifted to encompass the
interaction of characters 100 and 170. If characters 100 and 130 resume
their interaction, the 180° space reverts to its original position. Col. 6, l. 63
to col. 7, l. 5.
From our review, we do not find Rutgers discloses preparing a
second game screen in which the detected characters existing in the second
field are displayed. Rutgers shifts a 180° space when the third character
interacts with either of the original characters. When the original characters
resume interaction, the 180° space reverts back to its original position.
Thus, only two characters are within any “second field” and any “second
field” that may be created in Rutgers by the two characters in interaction is
changed as soon as a third character interacts with either of the two
characters. In other words, the “second field” changes either back to the
original two characters 100 and 130 or to the third character 170 and either
of the original characters 100 or 130 depending upon the interaction. As
such, since the “second field” changes and only two characters are present in
any “second field” there is no preparing of a second game screen in which
the detected characters, all three characters, existing in the second field are
displayed.

CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 15-23, and 25-30 as being anticipated by
Appeal 2009-009548
Application 10/108,701

6
Rutgers. The Examiner does not use Kawazu to remedy the deficiency
noted above with Rutgers. Accordingly, we are also constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 7, 12-14, and 24 as being unpatentable
in view of Rutgers and Kwazu.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-30.

REVERSED

Klh

SUGHRUE-265550
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON DC 20037-3213