Ex Parte Yamane et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 201814631313 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 14/631,313 02/25/2015 Tomoyoshi YAMANE LB-723-4126 1299 27562 7590 03/19/2018 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER WU, YANNA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2611 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/19/2018 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 TOMOYOSHI YAMANE and HIROTOSHIISHIBAI Appeal 2017-009365 Application 14/631,3131 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—12, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants’ Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies Nintendo Co., Ltd., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-009365 Application 14/631,313 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are generally directed to generating distributed, augmented reality environments that allow computing devices in different locations to capture their real world environment in order to generate a common space. The common space allows for a virtual object to be placed within the real world environment captured separately by each device in a different location. Spec. Tflf 9-11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An information processing system including at least a first information processing apparatus and a second information processing apparatus capable of communicating with the first information processing apparatus, each of the first information processing apparatus and the second information processing apparatus comprising one or more processors, the one or more processors of the first information processing apparatus configured to: as first captured image acquisition, acquire a first captured image captured by a first image capturing apparatus; as first reference recognition, recognize a first reference for placing a first virtual object in the first captured image; as first placement information setting, set first placement information for placing the first virtual object based on the first reference; as first transmission, transmit the first placement information to the second information processing apparatus; and as first display control, place the first virtual object in the first captured image based on the first reference and the first placement information and display the first captured image on a first display apparatus, the one or more processors of the second information processing apparatus configured to: 2 Appeal 2017-009365 Application 14/631,313 as first acquisition, acquire the first placement information transmitted from the first information processing apparatus; as second captured image acquisition, acquire a second captured image obtained by capturing, using a second image capturing apparatus, a place different from a place captured by the first image capturing apparatus; as second reference recognition, recognize a second reference for at least placing the first virtual object in the second captured image; and as second display control, place the first virtual object in the second captured image based on the second reference and the first placement information and display the second captured image on a second display apparatus, wherein the first placement information is information indicating a position and a direction at and in which the first virtual object is placed in the first captured image based on the first reference, and is also information indicating a position and a direction at and in which the first virtual object is placed in the second captured image based on the second reference, using the same information. App. Br. 24—25 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Matsuda Weising Yoon US 2012/0032955 A1 Feb. 9, 2012 US 2014/0002359 A1 Jan. 2, 2014 US 2015/0052221 A1 Feb. 19, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1—3, 5, 6, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weising and Matsuda. Final Act. 4—27. 3 Appeal 2017-009365 Application 14/631,313 Claims 7—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weising, Matsuda, and Yoon. Final Act. 28—34. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests placement information transmitted from a first device to a second device such that “the first placement information ... is also information indicating a position and a direction at and in which the first virtual object is placed in the second captured image based on the second reference, using the same information,” (hereinafter “the disputed limitation”) as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies primarily on Weising. Relevant here, the Examiner finds Weising generally teaches the sharing of motion and position information among devices. Ans. 6 (“Weising discloses motion and position information are shared with each other”) (citing Weising 149). The Examiner further finds that “Weising also teaches the motion and position of the device are relative information and are relative to the reference point in the player’s space.” Ans. 6 (citing Weising 141). Taken together, the Examiner finds, these teachings demonstrate “Weising teaches a device transmitting to another device its own relative position information.” Ans. 6. Against this background, the Examiner finds the example of a dual-location virtual ping-pong game depicted in Weising’s teaches the disputed limitation: 4 Appeal 2017-009365 Application 14/631,313 In the example of FIG. 5 . . . the motion and position of left and right device are relative information. They are used in a virtual environment to indicate the position and motion of an avatar relative to the reference point of the display device. When the relative position and motion of the left device is shared with the right device, this information is used by the right device to place the left paddle in the virtual reality of the right device. The right device has only one reference point. In the right device displayed virtual reality, all the position and motion of an entity (paddles and ping-pong ball) are relative to the right device’s reference point. Ans. 7. Appellants contend the Examiner has erred because “[i]n Weising, each device creates its own virtual space based on its own reference point (to synchronize the device).” App. Br. 16—17. Acknowledging that each device in Weising’s dual-location ping-pong game “does create a relative information (relative to a reference point) in its own space, along with absolute position information,” Appellants argue the cited portion of Weising “is silent as to a device transmitting to another device its own relative position information.” App. Br. 17. Appellants further argue that even if Weising did teach sharing of relative position information between devices, any such teaching would be insufficient to render the claims obvious because the claim recites that information must “indicate] a position and a direction at and in which the first virtual object is placed in the second captured image based on the second reference.” App. Br. 17 (quoting claim 1) (emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, the placement information sent to the second device must indicate where to place a virtual object within the second device’s display based on the reference point of the second device. App. Br. 17—18. 5 Appeal 2017-009365 Application 14/631,313 We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The description of the dual-location ping-pong game provided by Weising is a high level description and does not include details regarding the specific data that is passed between and among the devices. Although Weising teaches that “each device keeps track of the motion and position of the device,” and that “[t]his information is shared with the other device,” (Weising 149), there is no indication that the shared information includes information that indicates positioning and motion “based on the second reference,” as required by claim 1. Rather, Weising is silent regarding the precise nature of the motion and position information generated and shared by each device, other than to make clear that the motion and position of each device is determined “with respect to [its own] reference point.” Weising 141. As such, we agree with Appellants that in the scenario depicted in Weising’s Figure 5, each device “only transmits (first) position information related to its own environment,” and “does not transmit information that is also related to the environment of the second (e.g., right) device, as required by claim 1.” App. Br. 19. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor of claims 2, 3, and 5—9 which depend therefrom. For the same reason, we also do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 10—12 which also include the disputed limitation. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—12. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation