Ex Parte Ueno

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

12068405 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/068,405 02/06/2008
27562 7590 10/04/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Takayuki Ueno
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.
LB-723-2302 4340
EXAMINER
LI, LIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKA YUKI UENO
Appeal2015-006628
Application 12/068,405 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellant's invention relates to a controller, such as a controller for a
game apparatus, in which controller motion may be determined using image
capture of predetermined imaging targets and acceleration detection. A
predetermined process (e.g., in a game apparatus, causing a player character
1 Appellant identifies Nintendo Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-006628
Application 12/068,405
to perform a jump) is performed as a result of the motion determination.
(Spec. Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Claim l, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage
medium having stored therein an information processing
program being executable by a computer of an
information processing apparatus for performing a
process determined in accordance with a motion of a
handheld input device, the handheld input device
including an imaging capturing element and further
including an inertial sensor for detecting the motion of
the handheld input device, the information processing
program causing the computer to execute operations
compnsmg:
performing a first determination including
determining a motion of the handheld input device based
on images, included in an image captured by the imaging
capturing element;
performing a second determination including
determining the motion of the handheld input device
based on a detection result of the inertial sensor; and
performing a first process including executing a
predetermined process of moving a character in a virtual
space in accordance with each of the determination
result of the first determination and the determination
result of the second determination.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wii Remote - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia,
http:// en. wikipedia. org/w /index. php ?title= Wii_Remote& oldid= 105 891085
(version dated Feb. 5, 2007) (last visited May 20, 2013) (hereinafter
2
Appeal2015-006628
Application 12/068,405
"Wikipedia Wii Remote") and Zalewski et al. (US 2006/0256081 Al; Nov.
16, 2006.)
Issue
Does Zalewski, in proper combination with Wikipedia Wii Remote,
teach or suggest "performing a first process including executing a
predetermined process of moving a character in a virtual space in accordance
with each of the determination result of the first determination and the
determination result of the second determination" as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Zalewski' s teaching of moving a body in virtual
space, that is controlled in accordance with the movements of a game
controller, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1. (Final
Action 4--7; Answer 5-8, 10.)
Appellant argues Zalewski does not teach or suggest that a motion of
the handheld controller is detected using each of a first determination result
(based on image capture) and a second determination result (based on an
inertial sensor). (Appeal Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 1-3; 5-7.) Appellant argues
that while Zalewski uses the two determination results in conjunction to
track the location and orientation of the controller, Zalewski teaches only
that image data or sensor data, "not both," may be used for moving a
character in the virtual space. (Appeal Br. 13-14.)
Specifically, Appellant argues that in paragraphs 117 and 118 of
Zalewski, the signals from the inertial sensor (found by the Examiner to
teach or suggest the claimed "second determination") and signals from the
light sources (found to teach or suggest the claimed "first determination")
3
Appeal2015-006628
Application 12/068,405
are different ways to track the location or motion of the controller, but are
not used together to move a character in the virtual game space. However,
the Examiner also cites paragraphs 113, 115, and 131 of Zalewski. (Answer
6-8.) Zalewski discloses that "inertial sensors ... may provide position
and/or orientation information" (Zalewski i-f 113), that "orientation
information may include angular information such as tilt, roll or yaw of the
joystick controller" (id. i-f 113) and that images of light sources "can assist in
identifying tilt, yaw, and roll of the controllers" (id. i-fl 15 (emphasis added).)
Thus, Zalewski teaches or suggests that tilt, yaw, and roll of a controller may
be jointly determined by inertial and image sensing. Indeed, Zalewski
teaches the inertial sensors "provide part of a tracking information," and the
light sources "provide another part of the tracking information" (id.
i-f 118)( emphases added). We find tilt and yaw, along with rotation and other
manipulations of the controller, are specifically mentioned as a way to
determine rotation of a joystick which translates to a rotation of a game
object in the game. (Answer 7-8, citing Zalewski i-f 131.)
Appellant argues that paragraphs 113, 115, 131 among others "merely
teach using image data or inertial data" and do not disclose "that each of
these two types of data is used for performing" the predetermined process of
the disputed limitation. (Reply 3, 6.) However, Appellant does not
specifically address Zalewski's disclosure regarding the image data being
used to "assist" in identifying certain movement characteristics or in
providing "another part" of the controller tracking data. (See Zalewski
i-fi-1115, 118.) We are therefore not convinced of error in the Examiner's
findings with respect to the disputed limitation.
4
Appeal2015-006628
Application 12/068,405
Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and of
claims 10, 13-16, and 21-22, argued on the same basis (Appeal Br. 15) and
of claims 2-9, 11, 12, and 17-20, not separately argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wikipedia Wii Remote and Zalewski.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
5