Ex Parte YAMAMOTO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2018

14469919 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/469,919 08/27/2014
27562 7590 09/12/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masahiro YAMAMOTO
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.
SJP-723-4043 8530
EXAMINER
HENRY, THOMAS HAYNES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2018 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):
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 MASAHIRO YAMAMOTO, YUTA SAKAMOTO, and
TAKANORI MORI
Appeal2017-003670
Application 14/469,919
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nintendo Co., Ltd. ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23, which are all the
pending claims. See Appeal Br. 1; Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary).
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Nintendo Co., Ltd., a corporation of Japan, is the applicant, as
provided in 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-003670
Application 14/469,919
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention relates to recognizing a facial feature
of a user with a handheld camera on a control device and generating, within
a virtual space, an image perspective that corresponds to the position of the
recognized facial feature. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 5-10. Claims 1, 18, and 23
are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A handheld game apparatus, comprising:
a housing configured to be held by a user;
a display;
a touch panel on the display;
an inward camera disposed within the housing; and
a processor controlling the game apparatus to:
specify a position of eyes of the user based on an
image captured by the built-in camera,
control a virtual camera in a virtual space
according to the position of the eyes of the user,
generate a three-dimensional virtual space image
of the virtual space based on a perspective of the virtual
camera, and
display the three-dimensional virtual space image
on the display.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Oishi US 2003/0017872 Al Jan.23,2003
Wikipedia entry for "Nintendo DSi," (printed Apr. 16, 2015),
available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DSi
(hereinafter "Nintendo DSi").
2
Appeal2017-003670
Application 14/469,919
REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1-23 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oishi and
Nintendo DSi. Final Act. 2-5.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from Oishi
and Nintendo DSi renders obvious the subject matter claimed. See Final
Act. 2-5. Appellant argues that the teachings of the cited references do not
render obvious the claims because Oishi tracks a user's head, rather than
expressly disclosing that it tracks a facial feature like the eyes, and because
one would not have been motivated to modify Oishi' s system to work with a
handheld device taught in Nintendo DSi. See Appeal Br. 11-17; Reply
Br. 2-5. After careful consideration of the record before us, Appellant's
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's factual findings from
Oishi or Nintendo DSi, which are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence, or the Examiner's reasonable conclusion of obviousness, which is
rationally articulated based on prior art teachings. In short, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection based on the reasoned positions set forth therein and in
light of the Examiner's thorough responses to Appellant's arguments. See
Final Act. 2-6; Ans. 2-5.
In particular, Appellant does not differentiate the recited processor
from the processor of Oishi, which is taught to "calculate[] the coordinate
positions, etc. of each character ... viewed from the viewpoint of the
simulated camera within the simulated 3-dimensional space," such that "the
viewpoint of the simulated camera substantially matches the eye of the
3
Appeal2017-003670
Application 14/469,919
player." Oishi ,r 37 (emphasis added). Nor does Appellant address the
Examiner's supported finding that Oishi teaches that, although "the player's
marked region can be the player's head,"
because the movement of the player's head, and thus his eyes,
corresponds to the simulated camera viewpoint, movement of the
viewpoint becomes realistic. As a result, because the viewpoint
of the simulated camera and the movement of the player's head
(that is, his eye position) can be matched, a more realistic
viewpoint movement can be achieved.
Oishi ,r 80 ( emphasis added); see also Final Act. 6 (noting this finding and
explaining that, in Oishi, "a user's eye location is being matched by
following the movement of a user's head"); Ans. 2-3 ( explaining same).
Further, we are unpersuaded of any deficiency in the Examiner's
reasoning for combining Oishi' s tracking system with a handheld game
apparatus as in Nintendo DSi. Although Appellant points out that Oishi
depicts use with a stationary game system and display, we disagree with
Appellant's assertion that Oishi's tracking system would lack any benefit, or
be rendered unfit for its intended purpose, by incorporating it with a mobile
system. See Appeal Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 4. Rather, we agree with the
Examiner that a user could still move body parts relative to a mobile system,
thereby providing similar functionality to a stationary system while adding
the benefit of being readily portable. See Ans. 3--4 ("a user would be
capable of holding a handheld device and moving left to right or up and
down relative to the screen"). Thus, the Examiner's articulated rationale has
rational underpinnings.
Finally, Appellant asserts that Oishi's teaching of tracking a player's
head, and positioning a virtual camera thereby, is insufficient to correlate to
tracking and positioning via the recited "posture of the user" ( claim 21) or
4
Appeal2017-003670
Application 14/469,919
"gaze of the user" (claim 22). Appeal Br. 18-19; see also Reply Br. 6-7
(same). Similar to the argument discussed above, these assertions are
unpersuasive. As the Examiner explains, "posture" includes "a position of a
person's body," and "gaze," per the claim, is "determined based on the
specified position of the eyes of the user." Ans. 4--5 (emphasis added).
Regarding Appellant's argument that Oishi does not teach such position
tracking, the Examiner's finding that Oishi teaches tracking the position of
parts of a player's body, including the eyes (given known relationships
between the head and other body parts) is supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 4--5.
We note that any other arguments not specifically addressed in detail
herein have been thoroughly considered by the panel but are not persuasive
for the reasons discussed supra and those expressed in the Examiner's
Answer.
After careful consideration of all the evidence of record, Appellant's
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning
in support of the conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oishi and Nintendo DSi.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a). See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5