NINTENDO CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2021

2021000874 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2021)

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.
15/084,747 03/30/2016 Kei YAMASHITA RYM-723-4305 3525
27562 7590 08/26/2021
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
HSU, RYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2021 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 KEI YAMASHITA and SHOJI MASUBUCHI
Appeal 2021-000874
Application 15/084,747
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nintendo Co., Ltd. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-000874
Application 15/084,747

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to systems and methods for vibration signal
generation (for, e.g., video game controllers). Spec. ¶¶ 1–2. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having
stored therein a vibration signal generation program to be
executed by a computer included in an apparatus structured to
generate a vibration signal for vibrating a vibration apparatus,
the vibration signal generation program comprising instructions
causing the computer to execute operations comprising:
acquiring first data obtained by encoding amplitude
modulation information indicating a changing amplitude;
decoding the acquired first data to provide decoded
amplitude modulation information;
and
generating a current vibration signal for vibrating the
vibration apparatus using the decoded amplitude modulation
information and an amplitude of a previously generated
vibration signal, the decoded amplitude modulation information
indicating a change from the amplitude of the previously
generated vibration signal.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Hori US 4,435,751 Mar. 6, 1984
Levesque US 9,600,083 B2 Mar. 21, 2017
Goldenberg WO 01/24158 A1 Apr. 5, 2001
Morris WO 2013/134388 A1 Sept. 12, 2003

Appeal 2021-000874
Application 15/084,747

3
REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References
1–6, 12, 13, 15–20 103 Goldenberg, Hori
7, 9, 10, 14 103 Goldenberg, Hori,
Morris
11 103 Goldenberg, Hori,
Morris, Levesque

OPINION
Claims 1–6, 12, 13, and 15–20—§ 103—Goldenberg and Hori
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a computer-readable storage medium
storing a “vibration signal generation program” comprising instructions
requiring a computer to execute operations comprising: (1) “acquiring first
data obtained by encoding amplitude modulation information indicating a
changing amplitude”; (2) “decoding the acquired first data to provide
decoded amplitude modulation information”; and (3) “generating a current
vibration signal for vibrating the vibration apparatus using the decoded
amplitude modulation information and an amplitude of a previously
generated vibration signal, the decoded amplitude modulation information
indicating a change from the amplitude of the previously generated vibration
signal.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Independent claims 17–20 contain
similar limitations. Id. at 18–19. The Examiner finds that Goldenberg
teaches the “acquiring,” “decoding,” and “generating” limitations, except
that Goldenberg “does not explicitly teach generating a current vibration
signal for vibrating the vibration apparatus using the decoded amplitude
modulation information and an amplitude of a previously generated
vibration signal, wherein the decoded amplitude modulation information
indicating a change from the amplitude of the previously generated vibration
Appeal 2021-000874
Application 15/084,747

4
signal.” Final Act. 4–5 (citing Goldenberg, 7:18–32, 9:12–22, 20:12–32,
28:16–20, Figs. 1–8). The Examiner therefore relies on Hori for the missing
limitation. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that Hori “teach[es] a vibration
control device using a closed feedback loop to cause the generation of a
current vibration signal using decoded amplitude modulation information
and an amplitude of a previously generated vibration signal.” Id. (citing
Hori, 4:2–8, 5:10–27). The Examiner determines that:
One would have been motivated to incorporate the techniques
of using a previously generated vibration signal to yield the
predictable result to generate a vibration signal to be modified
to attain the desired effect (e.g., reduce the vibration) (see col.
6: ln 10–12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to
incorporate the teachings of Hori with the vibration controller
of Goldenberg to generate a current vibration signal for
vibrating the vibration apparatus using the closed feedback of a
decoded amplitude modulation information and an amplitude
and frequency of a previously generated vibration signal, the
decoded amplitude modulation information indicating a change
from the amplitude of the previously generated vibration signal.
Id.
Appellant responds, inter alia, that “the Final Rejection does not
explain how Goldenberg would be modified to use another vibration source
to cancel out the vibrations produced by the first vibration source(s), or why
a POSITA would make such a costly modification if Goldenberg’s goal is to
maximize vibration.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant asserts that “[s]ince
Goldenberg is carefully controlling the vibration he is producing, he can
easily reduce or eliminate the vibration simply by reducing or turning off the
control current,” rather than “to incur significant expense and added
complexity of incorporating an entirely different Hori system to purposefully
Appeal 2021-000874
Application 15/084,747

5
interfere with or cancel out the vibrations Goldenberg carefully produces.”
Id. (citing Goldenberg, 25); see Reply Br. 4–5 (“The Answer similarly does
not say how Hori’s inverse-Fourier-transformed digital time-domain signal
could be used with Goldenberg’s pulse width modulated signal.”).
Appellant acknowledges that Goldenberg teaches an embodiment that
uses “closed loop control,” but “Goldenberg’s closed loop control is very
different from Hori’s.” Id. at 11. According to Appellant, “Goldenberg uses
closed loop control based on use of a motor shaft encoder to determine the
position of the rotating motor(s) in order to more accurately produce desired
vibration,” whereas Hori discloses “using a vibration sensor to sense
unwanted/uncontrolled vibration that Hori then eliminates by generating
additional vibration to counteract it.” Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner denies that incorporating Hori’s system
with Greenberg “would produce undesirable expense and complexity by
using a closed looped system.” The Examiner asserts that, “[a]s explicitly
disclosed by Goldenberg, when ‘low-cost specifications can be relaxed and a
sensor can be provided to sense the position and/or motion of the motor,’ a
closed feedback loop may be implemented to ensure that the actuator is
moving properly to produce the desired effect.” Ans. 12 (citing Goldenberg,
27:28–35). According to the Examiner, “Goldenberg contemplates the use
of closed feedback loops and a PHOSITA would have looked to other
vibration control systems to eliminate unwanted sensed vibrations in order to
produce the desired haptic feedback effects.” Id. at 13.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant counters that:
The Answer seems to speculate that Hori could be used to
selectively remove unwanted parts of Goldenberg’s produced
vibrations [Answer at 13] but there is no teaching in either
Appeal 2021-000874
Application 15/084,747

6
reference to use Hori to counteract only part of Goldenberg’s
vibration. To the contrary, Hori appears to be carefully
designed to sense and counteract the entire broad spectrum of
vibration produced by an unknown/uncontrollable vibration
source. In contrast, the Answer itself points out that
Goldenberg’s vibration production system is able to exercise
fine control over the ‘time, frequency, and magnitude’ of
vibrations produced [Answer at 6] — which means that Hori’s
countervailing system would be entirely superfluous and a
wasteful, needless expense.
Reply Br. 5–6.
Goldenberg teaches “a method for controlling a vibrotactile interface
device, such as a gamepad.” Goldenberg, 4:1–2. A host computer sends
high-level instructions to the device regarding the desired magnitude
(amplitude) and frequency of vibrations to be generated by the device; a
processor maps the instructions to a periodic control signal that drives a
vibration actuator, e.g., an eccentric rotating mass motor, which caused the
mass to rotate and a vibration to thereby be generated. Id. at 4:2–8. The
magnitude, or amplitude, of the vibration is based on a duty cycle of the
control signal; i.e., the control signal can be either on or off, and the duration
of each “on-time” period determinates the amount of time the actuator is on,
and thus determines the magnitude of the vibration. Id. at 4:8–11, 17:28–
18:9, Figs. 5, 6. The amplitude of the control signal, and not simply whether
the control signal is on or off, can also be varied. Id. at 20:12–13.
Goldenberg’s system may also use a sensor to sense the position or motion
of the motor in order to “close a feedback loop around the actuator and
ensure it is moving properly.” Id. at 27:28–30, Fig. 4.
Hori’s invention “relates to a device for reducing vibrations and/or
noises resulting from the vibrations of an electrical apparatus such as . . . a
Appeal 2021-000874
Application 15/084,747

7
motor.” Hori, 1:5–9. In the embodiment depicted in Hori Figure 1,
vibration sensor 12 senses vibrations generated by electrical apparatus 10
and generates a corresponding analog signal 14, the amplitude of which
varies with time (i.e., an analog time-domain signal). Id. at 2:21–27, Fig. 1.
Analog-to-Digital converter 16 converts analog time-domain signal 14 to
digital time-domain signal 18, which is then subject to Fourier
transformation 20, resulting in digital signal 22 having an amplitude that
varies with frequency (i.e., a digital frequency-domain signal). Id. at 2:27–
36, Fig. 1. Control circuit 24 compares the amplitude and phase of signal 22
with the amplitude and phase of signal 22 determined in a previous time
interval. Id. at 4:48–61, Fig. 4. If this comparison indicates an increase (or
decrease) of vibration, a signal representing the result is sent to the control
signal generator 50, which generates digital frequency-domain control
signal 26 by changing the amplitude and the phase of the control signal
portion 26 determined in the previous time interval. Id. at 4:61–69, Fig. 4.
Control signal 26 is inverse-Fourier transformed to create digital time-
domain signal 30, which is converted by a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter
to analog time-domain signal 34. Id. at 2:44–49. Signal 34, amplified by
amplifier 36, actuates vibration applying device 38, which generates
vibrations for reducing the amplitudes of the vibrations generated by
electrical apparatus 10. Id. at 2:49–56.
We are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined Goldenberg and Hori as proposed by the Examiner. The
Examiner contends that the combined system would use Hori’s vibration
control system to “reduce the vibration” generated by Goldenberg’s system.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner does not dispute Appellant’s contention (Appeal
Appeal 2021-000874
Application 15/084,747

8
Br. 9) that the combination would require “another vibration source” to
reduce the vibration produced by Goldenberg’s system. However, as the
Examiner states (see, e.g., Ans. 7), Goldenberg uses its control signal to
change the amplitude of the vibrations it generates. The control signal
determines how long power is provided to the vibration actuators, which
determines the magnitude of the vibration. Goldenberg, 4:2–11, 17:28–18:9,
Figs. 5, 6. Thus, Goldenberg’s system can reduce vibrations simply by
reducing the on-time of the control signal. The Examiner does not
adequately explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have incurred
the expense of an additional vibration source without achieving any
additional functionality. Nor does the Examiner adequately explain how
Goldenberg’s use of a closed feedback loop to sense the position or motion
of the vibration actuator would have justified including Hori’s additional
vibration source with Goldenberg. As we are not persuaded that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Goldenberg with Hori as
proposed by the Examiner, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–6, 12, 13, and 15–20 as unpatentable over Goldenberg and Hori.
Claims 7, 9, 10, and 14—§ 103—Goldenberg, Hori, and Morris
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 9, 10, and 14 relies on the
combination of Goldenberg and Hori rendering claim 1 unpatentable, from
which claims 7, 9, 10, and 14 ultimately depend. Final Act. 14–17. Morris
is not relied upon to cure the deficiency noted above. Id. Accordingly, for
the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 9,
10, and 14 as unpatentable over Goldenberg, Hori, and Morris.
Appeal 2021-000874
Application 15/084,747

9
Claim 11—§ 103—Goldenberg, Hori, Morris, and Levesque
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 relies on the combination of
Goldenberg and Hori rendering claim 1 unpatentable, from which claim 11
ultimately depends. Final Act. 17–18. Morris and Levesque are not relied
upon to cure the deficiency noted above. Id. Accordingly, for the above
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as
unpatentable over Goldenberg, Hori, Morris, and Levesque.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 12,
13,
15–20
103 Goldenberg, Hori 1–6, 12,
13,
15–20
7, 9, 10,
14
103 Goldenberg, Hori,
Morris
7, 9, 10,
14
11 103 Goldenberg, Hori,
Morris, Levesque
11
Overall
Outcome
1–7,
9–20

REVERSED