Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

15547741 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
15/547,741 07/31/2017 Akitsugu Tsuchiya 545-621 3977
27538 7590 10/01/2020
Dernier IP Law, LLC
89 Headquarters Plaza North
PMB 1469
Morristown, NJ 07960
EXAMINER
GARNER, WERNER G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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):
info@gdiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AKITSUGU TSUCHIYA, YOSHIHIKO SUWA, and
TOMOHIRO OGAWA
Appeal 2020-000793
Application 15/547,741
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, 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 1–17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Interactive
Entertainment Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000793
Application 15/547,741

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an information processing apparatus.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An information processing apparatus connected with a
plurality of manipulation devices to receive manipulation inputs
from a plurality of users, the information processing apparatus
comprising:
a device management block configured to hold allocation
information for allocating each of the plurality of manipulation
devices to each of the plurality of users;
an allocation change notification block configured to
display, on a screen of a display apparatus, a guide image
including information for identifying a user before change and
information for identifying the user after change if, in the
allocation information, the user to whom one or more of the
plurality of manipulation devices is allocated is changed;
an application execution block configured to process a
game in which the users participate and further configured to
output a request to the device management block for the
allocation change as the game progresses, wherein the allocation
change request specifies a type of manipulation device to allocate
from one user to another user; and
a user management block configured to manage the users,
wherein at least one user is a late participant who logs into the
game after the game has started and one of the manipulation
devices is allocated to the late participant during the game
according to the allocation change request.
Appeal 2020-000793
Application 15/547,741

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Miyamoto US 2004/0229687 A1 Nov. 18, 2004
Bond US 2011/0009193 A1 Jan. 13, 2011
Ikenaga US 2013/0252741 A1 Sept. 26, 2013
Smith US 2014/0342818 A1 Nov. 20, 2014
Kazuyuki JP 2005312655 A Nov. 10, 2005
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4 and 8–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite.2
Claims 1–3 and 5–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Miyamoto and Smith.
Claims 4, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Miyamoto, Smith, and Kazuyuki.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Miyamoto, Smith, and Bond.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Miyamoto, Smith, and lkenaga.
OPINION
Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claims 1–17 as indefinite. Final Act. 3–7.3 In
the Answer, the Examiner withdraws a portion of that rejection as it relates
to the recitation of “a plurality of users,” “the plurality of users,” and “said

2 This rejection was modified in the Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 3, 23.
3 Although the rejection heading lists only claims 1–4 and 8–17, claims 5–7
are also addressed in the discussion of the rejection. See Final Act. 4, 6.
Appeal 2020-000793
Application 15/547,741

4
users” in claim 1 and the similar features recited in independent claims 5–7
and dependent claims 2–4 and 8–17. Ans. 23. The Examiner also
withdraws a portion of that rejection as it relates to the recitation of “a
plurality of manipulation devices,” “the plurality of manipulation devices,”
and “said manipulation devices” in claim 1 and the similar features recited in
independent claims 5–7 and dependent claims 2–4 and 8–17. Id.
The portions of the rejection withdrawn in the Answer are the only
portions addressed in the Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 5–6.4 Other bases
for the indefiniteness rejection of claims 1–17 are left uncontested by
Appellant. See Final Act. 4–7.
Our rules state that Appellant’s “arguments shall explain why the
examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.” See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). “When the appellant fails to contest a ground of
rejection to the Board . . . the PTO may affirm the rejection of the group of
claims that the examiner rejected on that ground without considering the
merits of those rejections.” Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2008). Accordingly, because there is no argument from Appellant, we
summarily affirm the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejections of claims 1–17
that remain pending.
Obviousness – Claims 1–3, 5–7, 11, and 12
Appellant argues claims 1–3, 5–7, 11, and 12 as a group. Appeal Br.
7–8. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 11, and 12 stand
or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

4 Appellant did not file a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2020-000793
Application 15/547,741

5
The Examiner finds that Miyamoto teaches many of the features
recited in claim 1, including
an allocation change notification block configured to display, on
a screen of a display apparatus, a guide image including
information for identifying a user before change and information
for identifying a user after change if, in the allocation
information, a user to whom one or more of the plurality of
manipulation devices is allocated is changed.
Final Act. 8. The Examiner acknowledges that Miyamoto does not
specifically teach that “at least one user is a late participant who logs into the
game after the game has started and one of said manipulation devices is
allocated to said late participant during the game according to said allocation
change request.” Id. at 9. The Examiner cites Smith as teaching the “late
participant feature.” Id. The Examiner reasons that “[i]t would have been
obvious to combine the . . . players operat[ing] characters as disclosed by
Miyamoto with the method that decouples a fixed relationship between a
user and a controller during gameplay as taught by Smith in order to permit
a more flexible game experience.” Id. at 11.
Appellant responds that Smith does not teach the allocation features.
See Appeal Br. 7 (“In Smith, players may change controllers, such as from
wired to a wireless controller (Smith, [0017]), but the game itself does not
assign a controller to a new player who joins after the game has started.”).
Appellant contends that “Smith teaches away from allocating a controller by
claiming to break the assigned one-to-one relationship between a user and a
controller (Smith, [0016], [0025]).” Id. Appellant further contends that
“Miyamoto fails to disclose that one of said manipulation devices is
allocated to a late participant during the game according to the allocation
Appeal 2020-000793
Application 15/547,741

6
change request” and, again, reiterates the teaching away contention
regarding Smith. Id. at 8. Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error.
Appellant acknowledges that the Examiner relies on Smith only for
the late participant addition. Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant alleges
inconsistencies with the Advisory Action and the Final Action, but we see
none. The fact that Miyamoto does not teach a late participant means that it
does not specifically teach the recited allocation features for a late
participant. See Final Act. 9 (“Miyamoto makes no mention of whether
players may join once the game has begun.”). However, the Examiner’s
proposed modification with Smith makes one of Miyamoto’s users a late
participant. See Final Act. 10, Ans. 28 (both stating that “players may join
and leave as a game progresses (Smith [0017])”). Hence, the combined
teachings of Miyamoto and Smith result in the “one user [being] a late
participant who logs into the game after the game has started and one of the
manipulation devices is allocated to the late participant during the game
according to the allocation change request” as recited in claim 1. Appellant
does not identify error in the Examiner’s findings because Appellant does
not address the actual findings relied on by the Examiner.
Appellant alleges that Smith teaches away from the proposed
modification. See Appeal Br. 7 (“Smith teaches away from allocating a
controller by claiming to break the assigned one-to-one relationship between
a user and a controller (Smith, [0016], [0025])”), 8 (“Smith does not remedy
this deficiency of Miyamoto because Smith expressly teaches away from
allocating controllers to players (see, Smith at paragraphs [0016], [0025]).”).
Appellant’s teaching away contention is not pertinent to the proposed
modification, which simply proposes to add a late participant in Miyamoto’s
Appeal 2020-000793
Application 15/547,741

7
game system. Certainly, Smith does not teach away from the addition of a
later user, nor does Appellant even allege this to be the case. Moreover, to
the extent the one-to-one relationship is at issue, the Examiner’s rejection
follows Smith’s teachings, rather than diverging from them as alleged. See
Final Act. 10–11 (finding that “Smith teaches an apparatus and method that
decouples a fixed relationship between a user and a controller,” and
reasoning that “[i]t would have been obvious to . . . decouple[] a fixed
relationship between a user and a controller during gameplay as taught by
Smith in order to permit a more flexible game experience”); see also Ans. 28
(“by combining Smith with Miyamoto, the result is that the manipulation
devices of Miyamoto may be allocated to different players during the course
of game play, some of which are players who join the game as the game
progresses”). Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s
proposed modification to Miyamoto’s teachings.
Obviousness – Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1, and further recites that “the device
management block stores an allocation management table for the
manipulation devices.” The Examiner finds that “Smith further teaches
wherein the device management block stores an allocation management
table for the manipulation devices (Smith, mappings 160 show a four way
mapping that relates a context to a controller and a user and an application
[0025] and [Fig. 1]).” Final Act. 17. The Examiner finds that Smith’s
“[m]appings 160 [in Figure 1] show a four way mapping that relates a
context to a controller (i.e., 7, 5 ... b) and a user (i.e., 2, 1 ... c) and an
application (Smith [0025])” and “[d]ifferent mappings may involve a greater
or lesser number of attributes (Smith [0025] and [Fig. 1]).” Ans. 29. The
Appeal 2020-000793
Application 15/547,741

8
Examiner finds that “[i]n one embodiment, mappings 160 may be updated in
real time or near real time to reflect the current reality in the game space
(Smith [0025]),” and “[t]hus the mappings show the assignment of
controllers and users.” Id. The Examiner explains that “[a]s game play
progresses, the mappings may be updated to reflect the current reality in the
game space.” Id.
Appellant contends that “Smith maps controllers based on context at
the time of an action, as is discussed in paragraph [0016] of Smith, not
allocation as recited in Applicant’s claims.” Appeal Br. 8. As noted above,
however, the Examiner does not rely on Smith for the allocation features.
The Examiner relies on Smith’s teachings, generally, as related to using a
table to store information regarding which controller is associated with a
given user. Appellant does not identify error in the Examiner’s finding or
reasoning for further modifying Miyamoto’s teachings. Appellant again
reiterates a teaching away argument (id. at 8–9), which is unpersuasive for
the reasons explained above.
Obviousness – Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 8, and further recites that “the allocation
management table includes the type of manipulation device allocated to each
user and a user ID for each user to whom one of the manipulation devices
was allocated.” The Examiner finds that Smith’s table includes both device
type and user ID. Final Act. 17.
Appellant responds with arguments similar to those presented with
respect to claim 8. See Appeal Br. 10 (contending that Smith does not
allocate a device to a user). Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed above relative to claim 8.
Appeal 2020-000793
Application 15/547,741

9
Obviousness – Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and further recites that “the type of
manipulation device is selected from the group consisting of: a keyboard, a
mouse, and a game controller.” The Examiner finds that Smith teaches “a
controller may include, for example, a gamepad, a remote, a game guitar, a
voice control apparatus, a gesture capture apparatus, haptic interfaces,
natural user interfaces [(NUI)], or other apparatus [0016]” and “an NUI is an
interface technology that enables a user to interact with a device in a
‘natural’ manner, free from artificial constraints imposed by input devices
such as mice, keyboards, remote controls, and others [0063]).” Final Act.
17.
Appellant responds that because Smith teaches using natural user
interfaces, “Smith teaches away from using mice and keyboards as allocated
input devices (Smith, [0063]).” Appeal Br. 11. As the Examiner correctly
notes, however, Smith simply teaches use of a natural user interface as one
of many possible options. See Ans. 33 (citing Smith ¶ 16). Smith explains
that “[a] controller may include, for example, a gamepad, a remote, a game
guitar, a voice control apparatus, a gesture capture apparatus, haptic
interfaces, natural user interfaces, or other apparatus.” Smith ¶ 16.
Accordingly, Appellant’s teaching away contention does not apprise us of
Examiner error.
Obviousness – Claims 4 and 13–17
Appellant does not provide separate arguments for claims 4 and 13–
17, which each depend from claim 1. For the reasons set forth above, we are
not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of these claims.
Appeal 2020-000793
Application 15/547,741

10
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8–17 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–4, 8–17
1–3, 5–12 103 Miyamoto, Smith 1–3, 5–12
4, 14, 17 103 Miyamoto, Smith,
Kazuyuki
4, 14, 17
13 103 Miyamoto, Smith,
Bond
13
15, 16 103 Miyamoto, Smith,
lkenaga
15, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–17

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED