Hino, Takanori

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 24, 2020

2019002810 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2020)

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.
11/367,426 03/06/2006 Takanori Hino LB-723-1846 6220
27562 7590 07/24/2020
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
ENGLISH, ALECIA DIANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2020 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 TAKANORI HINO
____________________

Appeal 2019-002810
Application 11/367,426
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–17, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this appeal.2 Appeal Br. 8. Claims 1–9 have been

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Mar. 6, 2006 (“Spec.”); the Final Office
Action, mailed Feb. 5, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed Sept. 14,
2018 (“Appeal Br”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Dec. 27, 2018
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Feb. 25, 2019.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Nintendo Corporation, Ltd. as the
real parte in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002810
Application 11/367,426

2
cancelled. Id. at 13 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system for extending the movement path (locus) of a pointing
device (e.g., cursor) on liquid crystal display (LCD, 12, 14) of game device
(10). Spec. 4:19–24, Fig. 1.
Figure 6, discussed and reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Appeal 2019-002810
Application 11/367,426

3
Figure 6 illustrates on game screen (100) in LCD (14) of game device (10)
extended locus (path L) joining initial path (Line a) including point A to
subsequent path (Line b) including point B. Spec. 9:24–25, id. at 21:1–6.

As depicted in Figure 6 above, a player slides stick (24) to object
(102), which it drags across touch panel (22) of game screen (100) to draw
thereupon initial path (Line a) including point A at which point the player
releases stick (24) thereby performing a touch-off operation at point A. Id. at
19:21–25, 20:12–16. Subsequently, when the player slides stick (24) to
touch point B, not on initial path (Line a), another path (Line b) is formed by
joining point A to point B, thereby extending initial path (Line a) to create
path L (Line a + Line b). Id. at 20:23–21:7.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 10, 16, and 17 are independent. Claim 10, reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
10. An object movement control apparatus, comprising:
a display for displaying a movable object;
a touch panel provided in relation to said display;
one or more computer processors, configured to perform:
input detection for detecting an input coordinates position entered by
said touch panel;
drawn locus creation for creating a first locus based on input
coordinates positions continuously detected by said input detection
according to a slide operation on said touch panel by a user;
locus extension for extending, when detecting by said input
detection a predetermined touch operation that a touch off is
performed after said slide operation, and then, a touch on is
performed at a position excluding said first locus, said first locus so
that said first locus comprises a segment from the position of said
touch off to the position of said touch on after creation of the first
locus by said locus creation; and
Appeal 2019-002810
Application 11/367,426

4
object movement for moving said movable object according to
said first locus extended by said locus extension, wherein said
movable object moves along the extended first locus on said touch
panel provided on said display.

Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
III. REFERENCES RELIED UPON
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Number Publ’d/Issued
Riendeau US 2004/0254019 A1 Dec. 16, 2004
Gillespie US 2008/0048997 A1 Feb. 28, 2008
IV. REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 10–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Riendeau and Gillespie. Final Act. 4–
7.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, pages 8–11
and the Reply Brief, pages 2–6.4
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues, inter alia, that
the combination of Riendeau and Gillespie does not teach or suggest (1)
extending a locus, when detecting that a touch-off is performed after a slide
operation, and then, a touch-on is performed at a position excluding the

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Appeal 2019-002810
Application 11/367,426

5
locus including a segment from the touch-off position to the touch-on
position after creation of the locus creation; and (2) moving a movable
object along the extended locus on the touch panel provided on the display,
as recited in claim 10. Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellant argues that
Gillespie’s disclosure of extending the movement of a cursor by extending
the drag motion of the finger does not cure the admitted deficiencies of
Riendeau or teach the disputed claim limitations. Id. at 8–9 (citing Gillespie
¶¶ 237, 246, 272, Figure 15E). According to Appellant, because Gillespie’s
drag extension relates to a locking drag feature wherein a subsequent drag
picks up from the touch off point of a previous drag, it does not teach a jump
to a point on the successive drag, as required by the claimed locus extension.
Reply Br. 4–5. More particularly, Appellant argues the following:
Gillespie’s cursor movement does not extend from Point A to
Point B. That is, Gillespie’s cursor does not move (or “jump”)
from Point A to Point B. There is thus no teaching or
suggestion in Gillespie of “a segment from the position of said
touch off [Point A] to the position of said touch on [Point B]”
that is a part of “the extended first locus” along which “said
movable object moves” as required by claim 10.
Id. at 4 (alterations in original).
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Riendeau discloses an online game of chance where a player can earn
prizes according to movement paths (loci) including multiple branches and
nodes (i.e., touch-on points) selected by the player to move a piece from a
starting point and to an end point along a map. Riendeau ¶¶ 32–35, Figs.
2A–E. The Examiner acknowledges that although Riendeau’s disclosure of
users selecting touch-on actions teaches creating a movement path on the
map, the ensuing locus is not created according to a slide operation on the
Appeal 2019-002810
Application 11/367,426

6
touch panel. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner also admits that Riendeau does not
teach the locus extension, and relies upon Gillespie to cure the noted
deficiencies. Id.
Gillespie discloses a method and system for simulating input
functions such as clicking a mouse or moving a cursor on a display by
detecting a gesture of a user’s finger sensed on a sensing touch plate.
Gillespie ¶¶ 51, 83. In particular, Gillespie discloses that upon detecting and
recognizing a user’s touch (e.g., tapping or dragging a finger) on the touch
plate, a capacitive position sensing system sends a signal to the host
computer to click or move the cursor. Id. ¶¶ 83, 237, 246. The user performs
Gillespie’s basic drag gesture by tapping once, and quickly bringing the
finger back in contact with the pad to move the finger in a desired direction
in the XY plane of the pad. Id. ¶ 255. According to Gillespie, these gestures
simulate depressing the mouse button at the beginning of the drag gesture,
and releasing it only when lifting the finger from the pad. Id. Gillespie also
discloses a “locking drag” feature to extend the drag movement of the cursor
by beginning the drag motion when the user initially taps (touching-on and
touching-off) on the pad, and the drag movement continues until the user
taps (touching-on and touching-off) again on the pad within the drag
timeout. Id. ¶¶ 256–59, Fig. 15E.
We agree with the Examiner that Gillespie’s basic drag feature
teaches a slide operation including a segment from a touch-on position to a
touch-off position. Ans. 4–5. We likewise agree with the Examiner that
Gillespie’s drag extension feature teaches a segment including a touch-off
position to a touch-on position. Id. However, we do not agree with the
Examiner that the cited portions of Gillespie teach the locus extension, as set
Appeal 2019-002810
Application 11/367,426

7
forth in the disputed limitations above. We instead agree with Appellant, that
Gillespie’s basic drag and extended drag features do not teach “‘a segment
from the position of a touch off [Point A] to the position of said touch on
[Point B]’ that is a part of ‘the extended first locus’ along which ‘said
movable object moves’ as required by claim 10.” Reply Br. 4. That is, the
proposed combination of Riendeau and Gillespie teaches, at best, effecting
on the sensor pad an initial drag gesture by performing a slide operation, and
extending the initial drag by touching-on/off a point in the initial locus, and
then touching-on/off another point outside the initial locus. In this particular
case, the application of Gillespie would vitiate the claim language, which
precludes including a point in the initial locus to perform the extension.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the combination of Riendeau and
Gillespie falls short of teaching extending an initial locus to an external
point by tapping on the external point after the creation of the initial locus.
Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the combination
of Riendeau and Gillespie, we do not reach Appellant’s remaining
arguments. Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 10.
Because claims 11–17 also recite the disputed limitations discussed
above, we are likewise persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of the
cited claims over the combination of Riendeau and Gillespie.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
10–17.

Appeal 2019-002810
Application 11/367,426

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
10–17 103 Riendeau, Gillespie 10–17

REVERSED