Ex Parte Yoshikawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

12827172 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
12/827,172 06/30/2010 Kazuhiro YOSHIKAWA MEN-723-2838 4655
27562 7590 03/01/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
WANG, JIN CHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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 KAZUHIRO YOSHIKAWA,
HITOSHI YAMAGAMI, and TOSHIO NOGUCHI
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—28, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real party in interest is identified as NINTENDO CO., LTD. App. Br.
3.
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
Claimed Subject Matter
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
having stored therein an information processing program to be
executed by a computer of an information processing apparatus
that comprises a first input device having at least one operation
key, the information processing program comprising instructions
that cause the computer to:
display an image on a display device at a first
magnification;
determine an input state of the at least one operation key;
obtain movement information of the first input device;
enlarge or reduce the displayed image from the first
magnification to a second magnification that is different from the
first magnification in accordance with a change of the obtained
movement information during a time period in which the at least
one operation key is determined to be in a predetermined input
state;
cause the enlarged or reduced displayed image that is
being displayed at the second magnification to return to the first
magnification in accordance with cancelation of the
predetermined input state of the at least one operation key; and
control an action of at least one first object that is included
in the displayed image.
Rejection
Claims 1—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Ohta (US 2007/0211027 Al; pub. Sep. 13, 2007), Inagaki et al. (US
2010/0092155 Al; pub. Apr. 15, 2010) (“Inagaki”), Tahara et al. (US
2005/0227762 Al; pub. Oct. 13, 2005) (“Tahara”), and Kuboyama et al. (US
2008/0079691 Al; pub. Apr. 3, 2008) (“Kuboyama”). Final Act. 9-41.
2
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—4, 10—12, 14—21, and 22—28
Appellants argue the combination of Ohta, Inagaki, Tahara, and
Kuboyama fails to teach or suggest a program comprising instructions
causing a computer to “cause the enlarged or reduced displayed image that is
being displayed at the second magnification to return to the first
magnification in accordance with cancelation of the predetermined input
state of the at least one operation key,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13—
21; Reply Br. 2—7. In particular, Appellants contend Ohta cannot be
combined with Kuboyama because Ohta teaches away from Kuboyama’s
technique. App. Br. 13—18; Reply Br. 5—7.
Appellants acknowledge “Kuboyama appears to suggest cancelling a
magnification process by releasing a sensor” previously used to magnify a
displayed image (App. Br. 14—15 (citing Kuboyama Tflf 42-43 (discussing a
magnification key))), but argue Ohta “teaches away from the button
functionality in Kuboyama” because “Ohta’s express desire [is] to link the
distance between the controller and the display to the zoom or scale level”
(App. Br. 15, 18 (citing Ohta^flf 32, 122, 137, 155; Fig. 15)). According to
Appellants, Ohta’s intuitive technique for controlling a scale level based on
distance “provides users with a natural experience because a person
normally expects that moving ‘closer’ to an object increases the size of how
that object is perceived.” App. Br. 14 (citing Ohta ^fl[ 32, 155). Appellants
contend Kuboyama’s cancelation technique—which uses a magnification
key to adjust zoom level without regard to distance—would destroy the
advantages realized by Ohta’s technique, and thus change the principle of
operation of Ohta and render aspects of it inoperable. App. Br. 15—16.
3
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
Appellants also contend the Examiner has not explained why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Ohta and Kuboyama. App.
Br. 16-17.
In response, the Examiner finds Ohta’s zoom/scale control does not
rely solely upon a distance factor; rather, Ohta controls an image scale based
on a combination of factors such as the press/release of the operation key 72i
and movement information of the game controller 7. Ans. 19 (citing Ohta
Tflf 86, 110-112, 142; Fig. 15). A reference does not teach away if it merely
expresses a general preference for an alternative invention from amongst
options available to the ordinarily skilled artisan, and the reference does not
discredit or discourage investigation into the invention claimed. In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although Ohta’s Figure 15
adjusts magnification when operation button 72i is pressed, Ohta does not
expressly discourage adjusting magnification when an operation button is
not pressed. We therefore agree with the Examiner that Ohta does not teach
away from using Kuboyama’s cancellation functionality in Ohta’s game
controller. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have modified Ohta in this way to “avoid[] returning the
game controller 7 to the Position A in order to cancel the second
magnification in the Input State B.” Ans. 18; see also Ans. 13. Although
such a combination would necessarily modify certain aspects of Ohta, we
are not persuaded such modifications would render Ohta inoperable or
change its basic principles of operation.2
2 Because we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding
the combination of Kuboyama and Ohta, we do not reach Appellants’
arguments regarding Inagaki and Tahara (App. Br. 17—21), which were
4
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
In view of the above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ohta, Inagaki, Tahara, and
Kuboyama. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and, for the same
reasons, the rejections of claims 10-12, 14—19, and 23—26, which are not
argued separately.
With respect to independent claim 20, Appellants reiterate the same
arguments presented against claim 1. App. Br. 18, 21. Appellants further
argue claim 20’s additional limitation of “control[ling] a shooting of at least
one arrow object in the game image” is not taught by the cited references.
App. Br. 21.
The Examiner responds that Ohta’s virtual shooting game simulates a
gun shooting bullets, which suggests controlling and propelling other
moving objects in a game, such as arrows. Ans. 20-21 (citing Ohta 1 6).
The Examiner also points to Appellants’ Specification, which describes a
prior art archery video game in which an arrow is shot by moving a
controller. Ans. 21 (citing Spec. 13).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that controlling a shooting of
an arrow object in a game image would have been obvious in view of Ohta’s
virtual shooting game and Appellants’ admitted prior art archery video
game. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ohta, Inagaki, Tahara, and Kuboyama.
relied on for teaching the same limitations in claim 1 for which Kuboyama
was relied on (Final Act. 12—19).
5
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
Claims 2, 4, 21, 27, and 28
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites, inter alia,
instructions that cause the computer to “control a movement of the at least
one first object toward the position indicated by the pointing coordinate at
the time when the predetermined input state is canceled.” Claim 21,
depending from claim 20, recites a similar limitation with respect to an
arrow object. Claim 27 depends from claim 23 and recites that “the action
of the at least on [sic] virtual first object is controlled in accordance with
cancelation of the predetermined input state of the at least one operation
key.” Claim 28, depending from claim 1, recites a similar limitation.
Appellants argue claims 2, 21, 27, and 28 require that “the cancelation
of the input state returns the image to the first magnification and also causes
movement of the object in the image for which the magnification is
changing.” App. Br. 22—23; see also Reply Br. 8. Appellants contend the
cited portions of Ohta do not discuss controlling an object based on the
cancelation of a key input state, and in particular, Ohta does not disclose a
“movement or action of the object shown in the display image is controlled
either at a time when the input is canceled or ‘in accordance with’
cancelation of the input.” App. Br. 22.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error in the rejection, as
they do not address the Examiner’s findings regarding what paragraphs 102
and 104 of Ohta would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Final Act. 19-20, 22—23 (citing Ohta ^fl[ 102, 104). In particular, Ohta’s
paragraph 104 teaches that “the motion, posture, position and the like of the
controller 7 can be used as an operation input which directly affects an
object displayed on the display screen.” Such an operation key input “is
6
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
different from an operation input made by pressing an operation button or
using an operation key.” Ohta 1104. Thus, Ohta teaches a user can control
a displayed object by moving the controller in front of the display, without
pressing operation keys. See Ohta 1104. Based on this disclosure, we agree
with the Examiner that Ohta teaches or suggests controlling a displayed
object’s action—such as the object’s movement—at a time when a user
moves the controller and the operation key is released. Final Act. 19—20,
22-23.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 21, 27,
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ohta, Inagaki, Tahara,
and Kuboyama. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 4 (depending from claim 2) not argued separately.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “the predetermined input
state is an input state in which the at least one operation key is pressed.”
The Examiner finds Ohta’s Figure 12B illustrates an image displayed on a
monitor when the controller’s keys are in a predetermined input state in
which operation key/drag button 72i is pressed. Ans. 24 (citing Ohta Figs.
12A—12B, 11111—112 (“In FIG. 12B ... the player U can cause an object
displayed on the monitor 2 to be reduced in size, by moving the controller 7
close to the monitor 2 while pressing the operation button 72/.”)).
Appellants contend Ohta does not disclose the claim 3 limitations
because the “‘at least one operation key’ [of claim 3] must be in a state that
is ‘pressed’ and act in response to determination of cancelation of the press
state for that same ‘at least one operation key’” as required by claim 1 from
7
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
which claim 3 depends (Reply Br. 8); in contrast, “Ohta does not describe
cancelling a button press to cause the displayed image to return to a first
magnification” (App. Br. 23).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. As discussed supra
with respect to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that Ohta in
combination with Kuboyama teaches and suggests releasing a button to
cause a displayed image to return to a first magnification. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Ohta, Inagaki, Tahara, and Kuboyama.
Claims 5 and 22
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites that the information
processing program causes the computer to:
measure the time period in which the at least one operation
key is determined to continuously be in the predetermined input
state; and
determine whether or not the time period is equal to or
greater than a first threshold value, and
when it is determined that the predetermined input state is
canceled and when it is determined that the time period is equal
to or greater than the first threshold value, cause the enlarged or
reduced displayed image to return to the first magnification.
Claim 22 depends from claim 20 and recites similar limitations. The
Examiner finds Ohta measures a time period as claimed because Ohta sets a
drag flag isDrag to 1 and enlarges or reduces a displayed image for a time
period during which operation key 72i is pressed. Final Act. 24 (citing Ohta
Fig. 15); Ans. 26 (citing Ohta 135). The Examiner also finds Inagaki
measures a time period in which a push button is in a press state because
8
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
Inagaki discloses “a push state B [of push button 642] depending upon the
second range of pushing wherein the push button 642 is in a press state.”
Ans. 26 (citing Inagaki 1170). The Examiner also cites paragraphs 172—174
of Tahara as teaching enlarging a button figure depending on a number of
times of touching or depressing the button figure or to a maximum size set in
advance. Final Act. 25, 41.
Appellants argue none of Ohta, Tahara, and Inagaki discloses
measuring a time period in which an operation key is in a predetermined
state, and using such a measurement as a factor for causing an image to
return to a first magnification, as required by claims 5 and 22. Reply Br. 9;
App. Br. 24-25.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown how Ohta,
Tahara, or Inagaki teaches measuring a time period in which an operation
key is in a certain state for comparing the time period with a threshold and
reversing an image magnification based on the comparison, as required by
claims 5 and 22. The cited portions of Ohta disclose performing an image
magnification for the time period during which the operation key is pressed,
but do not teach an actual measurement of this time period. See Ohta 135.
The cited portions of Inagaki teach a zoom level determined in accordance
with the degree to which a button is pressed, but do not teach measuring any
time period. See Inagaki 1170. Tahara does not make up for the above-
noted deficiencies of Ohta and Inagaki. The cited portions of Tahara merely
disclose enlarging a button figure depending on a number of times of
touching or depressing the button figure or to a maximum size set in
advance, and do not teach measuring a time period in which the button
figure is touched or depressed. See Tahara ]ff[ 172—174. The Examiner also
9
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
has not shown how the additional teachings of Kuboyama cure the above-
noted deficiencies of Ohta, Inagaki, and Tahara.
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
Examiner’s finding that the references teach or render obvious the claimed
time period measurement and processing based on the measurement, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ohta, Inagaki, Tahara, and Kuboyama.
Claim 6—8 and 13
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites the information processing
program causes the computer to:
measure the time period in which the at least one operation
key is determined to continuously be in the predetermined input
state, and
the displayed image is enlarged or reduced to the second
magnification at a rate in accordance with the time period.
Appellants argue neither Ohta nor Inagaki discloses measuring a time
period as claimed because Ohta and Inagaki do not measure an amount of
time a loop has run or a button was pressed. App. Br. 25—26; Reply Br. 9.
As discussed supra with respect to claims 5 and 22, we agree with
Appellants that the cited portions of Ohta and Inagaki do not teach
measuring an amount of time a button has been actuated. Moreover,
although Ohta’s Figure 15 discloses a loop, the “loop does not inherently
require measuring how long that loop has been running.” App. Br. 25.
Thus, Ohta’s loop does not teach the claimed time period measurement. The
Examiner has not shown how the additional teachings of Tahara and
Kuboyama cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ohta and Inagaki.
10
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
Examiner’s finding that the references teach or render obvious the claimed
time period measurement, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ohta, Inagaki, Tahara, and
Kuboyama. We similarly do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 7,
8, and 13, which depend from claim 6.
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites that the information
processing program causes the computer to:
calculate, based on the movement information, a moving
amount at least in a predetermined direction of a movement of
the first input device since a time point when the at least one
operation key has entered the predetermined input state; and
determine whether or not the moving amount is equal to
or greater than a second threshold value, and
when it is determined that the predetermined input state is
canceled and when it is determined that the moving amount is
equal to or greater than the second threshold value, the enlarged
or reduced displayed image is caused to return to the first
magnification.
Claim 9 requires a comparison step of “determin[ing] whether or not
the moving amount is equal to or greater than a second threshold value”
before deciding to return the displayed image to the first magnification.
The Examiner finds Ohta teaches a moving amount of a controller
moved from a first positon to a second position away from a monitor, and a
second threshold value corresponding to an amount required for
transitioning from a first state (corresponding to the first position) to a
second state (corresponding to the second position) on the monitor. Ans. 33
11
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
(citing Ohta^flf 111—112; Figs. 12A—12B, 13A—13B). The Examiner
alternatively finds Ohta’s Figure 15 teaches a second threshold value as “a
predetermined threshold that is worthy of updating the Scale in S60” in
accordance with a moving distance moveD. Final Act. 28—29 (citing Ohta
Fig. 15). The Examiner also finds Inagaki teaches a moving amount
corresponding to a push button transition between two push states A and B,
and a second threshold value as “the time period required for exiting the
push state B to enter into the push state A or the release state A.” Ans. 32
(citing Inagaki 1170).
Appellants argue neither Ohta nor Inagaki discloses determining
whether or not the moving amount is equal to or greater than a second
threshold value as a basis for deciding when to return an image to a first
magnification, as required by claim 9. Reply Br. 9; App. Br. 27. We agree
with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown Ohta or Inagaki teaches
returning an image to a first magnification based on the moving amount
being equal to or greater than a threshold value. The cited portions of Ohta
teach changing magnification based on a moving amount, but not returning
to the original magnification when the moving amount equals or exceeds a
particular threshold. The cited portions of Inagaki teach a zoom level
determined in accordance with an amount a button is pushed, but do not
teach returning to the original zoom level if a moving amount equals or
exceeds a threshold. See Inagaki 1170. The Examiner also has not shown
how the additional teachings of Tahara and Kuboyama make up for the
above-noted deficiencies of Ohta and Inagaki.
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
Examiner’s finding that the references teach or render obvious the
12
Appeal 2015-002764
Application 12/827,172
determining limitation recited in claim 9, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ohta, Inagaki,
Tahara, and Kuboyama.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 10—12, 14—21, and 23—
28 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5—9, 13, and 22 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13