Ex Parte Yamada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2016

12856274 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/856,274 08/13/2010
27562 7590 06/08/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y oichi YAMADA
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.
MEN-723-2869 1738
EXAMINER
STERNBANE,LAURENCEJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2699
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2016 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 YO I CHI YAMADA, HIDEMARO FUJIBA Y ASHI,
andRYOTANAKA
Appeal2013-010169
Application 12/856,274
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2013-010169
Application 12/856,274
SUMMARY 1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-21:2
Claims 1---6, 13-16, and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kerr et al. (US 2009/0066648 Al; published Mar.
12, 2009) ("Kerr") in view of Yoshikawa (US 5,319,387; issued June 7,
1994) ("Yoshikawa").
Claims 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Kerr in view of Yoshikawa and Rekimoto, "Tilting Operations for Small
Screen Interfaces (Tech Note)" (167-68) UIST 1996 ("Rekimoto").
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Kerr in view of Yoshikawa and Park et al. (US 2009/0051667 Al; published
Feb. 26, 2009) ("Park").
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We review the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential) (citing In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
We affirm.
1 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Office Action dated November 13, 2012 ("Final Act."); the
Appeal Brief filed March 27, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer
mailed June 10, 2013 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed August 12, 2013
("Reply Br.").
2 Claim 12 is objected to but is otherwise allowable. Final Act. 14.
2
Appeal2013-010169
Application 12/856,274
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants describes the present invention as follows:
Correspondence data representing correspondence
between a plurality of selection target objects and the attitude of
an input device is stored in an information processing apparatus.
In accordance with attitude/motion data acquired from the input
device, the attitude of the input device is calculated. In
accordance with the correspondence data, a selection target
object corresponding to the attitude of the input device is selected
thereby to perform a process based on the selection target object
having been selected.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
claims:
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
having stored therein an information processing program
comprising instructions which when executed on a computer of
an information processing apparatus performing predetermined
information processing based on attitude/motion data acquired
from an attitude/motion sensor for detecting an attitude or motion
of an input device, cause the computer to perform the following:
storing correspondence data representing correspondence
between a plurality of selection target objects and a
corresponding plurality of attitudes of the input device;
displaying the plurality of selection target objects on a
display unit;
acquiring the attitude/motion data;
calculating an input attitude, which is an attitude of the
input device, in accordance with the attitude/motion data
acquired by the data acquisition;
selecting a selection target object from among the plurality
of selection target objects in accordance with the input attitude
3
Appeal2013-010169
Application 12/856,274
calculated by the input attitude calculating and the
correspondence data; and
performing a process according to the selection target
object selected by the object selecting.
ARGUMENTS
The Examiner finds that Kerr discloses all of the limitations of the
independent claims except for the step of storing correspondence data
representing correspondence between selection target objects and
corresponding attitudes of the input device. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner
finds that "storing such correspondence data is known in the art." Id. 4. The
Examiner cites Yoshikawa as evidence that it was known to employ an
"angle table" (a lookup table) to store correspondence data between an angle
and a set of coordinates that represents a particular object in space. Id. 4--5.
The Examiner concludes, given that Kerr processes information based on
attitude and motion data acquired from an attitude/motion sensor (id. 5) and
performs a process with a target object that was selected in accordance with
calculated attitude data (id. 4), it would have been obvious to use a lookup
table to store the correspondence data that would represent the
correspondence between Kerr's calculated input attitude and Kerr's selection
target objects (id. 5).
Appellants assert that "[ n ]either applied reference discloses the
claimed feature of storing 'correspondence data representing correspondence
between a plurality of selection target objects and a corresponding plurality
of attitudes of the input device' as recited in each of independent claims 1
and 19-21." App. Br. 8. Appellants frame the issue on appeal as "whether
4
Appeal2013-010169
Application 12/856,274
it would have been obvious to further modify the combination of references
to add this feature." Id.
Appellants present three general arguments for why, in their view,
such a modification would not be obvious. App. Br. 8-14. First, Kerr's
handheld wand uses both orientation- and position sensors in order to control
the cursor' location on a screen, and that "the position of the cursor on the
screen relative to the positions at which icons are displayed on the screen is
what selects a displayed icon." Id. 8.
Appellants further argue in relation to Kerr that because "Kerr's
cursor control depends on both handheld device displacement (position) and
its orientation[,] ... there is no one-to-one correspondence between Kerr's
handheld device orientation and Kerr's cursor position." Id. 9.
Appellants additionally argue that Yoshikawa "is interested in
ascertaining the position of [a] handheld wand in 3 D space, and [uses an
'angle' table] to ascertain such position based on angle of reflection of a
light beam." Id. IO. That is, Yoshikawa attempts to measure angles of light
reflected off of a wand, and uses the "angle table" to map a 3D position of
the wand based on the angle of reflected light, but is not used to map the
attitude of the wand. Id. 10-13; Reply Br. 1--4. As such, the Examiner only
reaches the claimed combination through impermissible hindsight.
App. Br. 14.
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding Kerr. The
fact that Kerr displays a cursor on the monitor does not necessarily mean
that the cursor is what selects a displayed icons. See, e.g., Spec. [ 100] and
5
Appeal2013-010169
Application 12/856,274
associated FlGs. 9-11, 13 and 14 (all depicting that notwithstanding
Appellants' use of the correspondence lookup table, Appellants also employ
a cursor-the displayed "instruction icon 104 connected with a string like
object extending from the central icon 103"). Rather, the depiction of a
cursor could be a mere visual aid that assists the user better determine how
to adjust the attitude of Kerr's remote. That is, the cursor could be an
additional result of mapping the calculated attitude to the selected target
object. Accordingly, the record does not reflect adequately that Kerr's icon
selection is performed by the cursor position, as opposed to the calculated
input attitude.
Regardless, though, the question of whether the selection of Kerr's
object is performed by a cursor is not dispositive of error. Claim 1, for
example, is not so narrow as to require direct correspondence between the
selection target objects and the corresponding attitudes of the input device.
Rather, the claims are broad enough to read on storing correspondence data
representing indirect correspondence, such as correspondence between the
targets and the cursor or correspondence between the calculated input
attitude and the cursor.
But more importantly, even if we were to assume for the sake of
argument that Kerr discloses that the cursor selects the target objects, that
method of correspondence is exactly what the Examiner proposed to be
modified through substitution by Yoshikawa's correspondence method of
using a lookup table. Ans. 3. That is, even if we accept Appellants'
argument that Kerr uses a cursor for selecting the selection target object, the
argument would still be unpersuasive because Appellants are arguing Kerr's
6
Appeal2013-010169
Application 12/856,274
teaching alone, when the rejection is based upon the combination of Kerr
and Yoshikawa.
We are likewise unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the
fact that Kerr measures changes in the remote' s position, as well as the
attitude. Claim 1 does not limit the recited correspondence data to data that
corresponds to only the calculated input attitude. Instead, the claims are
broad enough to read on storing correspondence data that corresponds to
calculated data that is based upon both input attitude and position. That is,
claim 1 uses an open-ended language of the medium "having" a program
that performs various steps without exclusion to other steps. Additionally,
claim 1 recites "calculating an input attitude ... in accordance with the
attitude/motion data acquired by the data acquisition in accordance with the
attitude/motion data" (emphases added).
Thirdly, Appellants' arguments regarding Yoshikawa are
unpersuasive, as well. Appellants' arguments are based on the proposition
that the proposed combination entails bodily incorporating the specific
process by which Yoshikawa corresponds measured light reflection angles to
the target objects. App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 1--4. However, the Examiner
is not relying on the specific kind of data that Yoshikawa maps with the
tables.
Reading the reasoning of the Final Action and Answer as a whole, we
instead understand the Examiner to be taking the position that Kerr, itself,
discloses all of the recited steps of gathering data, calculating (at least)
attitude, selecting target objects based on (at least) the calculated attitude,
and performing process according to the selected target object. And as such,
7
Appeal2013-010169
Application 12/856,274
in order to perform these steps, Kerr necessarily must correspond the
calculated input attitude to the target object in some manner.
The only disclosure missing from Kerr is the specifically claimed
manner in which Kerr undertakes this generally-disclosed correspondence.
The Examiner explains that "Yoshikawa was brought in only for its teaching
of the concept of mapping selectable objects to angles, and pre-storing said
mapping in a table." Ans. 2-3. The Examiner further explains that "a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the angle table
of [Yoshikawa] as a substitute method of selecting target objects, and that
the cursor of Kerr, used to select from a plurality of displayed target
object[s], could have been replaced with the angle table of Yoshikawa."
Ans. 3.
Accordingly, we understand the Examiner's position to be that it
would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to store Kerr's
disclosed attitude data corresponding to Kerr's disclosed selection objects by
a correspondence-storing table as taught by Yoshikawa-i.e., a conventional
lookup table. For the previously mentioned reasons, then, Appellants have
not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1. As such, we will sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of that claim, as well as claims 2---6, 13-16, and 18-21, which are
not argued separately.
We likewise sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims
7-11 over Kerr in view of Yoshikawa and Rekimoto, as well as claim 17
over Kerr in view of Yoshikawa and Park. Appellants have not particularly
pointed out errors in the Examiner's reasoning regarding the further
teachings of these additional references. Rather, Appellants merely reiterate
8
Appeal2013-010169
Application 12/856,274
the same arguments that are set forth in relation to independent claim 1
regarding the alleged deficiencies of Kerr and Yoshikawa. App. Br. 14--15.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11and13-21 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
9