Toshiaki Suzuki

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 18, 2019

13961114 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2019)

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.
13/961,114 08/07/2013 Toshiaki SUZUKI RYM-723-3814 9680
27562 7590 11/18/2019
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
FLORES, ROBERTO W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2019 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 TOSHIAKI SUZUKI
____________

Appeal 2018-007781
Application 13/961,114
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–18, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. 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) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nintendo
Co., Ltd.. App. Br. 3.

Appeal 2018-007781
Application 13/961,114

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s Specification describes systems and methods for
“displaying a part of an image on a portable display.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing
an information processing program to be executed by at least one
computer for displaying at least an image on a portable display device
having a sensor configured to output data based on a movement or an
attitude of a main body of the portable display device and also having
a direction indication device configured to enable a user operation
input, the information processing program causing the computer to
execute:
displaying an image in a first display range on the portable
display device;
in accordance with a current attitude of the portable display
device calculated based on the data output from the sensor, setting an
attitude of a virtual camera in a three- dimensional virtual space;
before displaying an image using the attitude of the virtual
camera set in accordance with the current attitude of the portable
display device, further setting the attitude of the virtual camera in the
virtual space in accordance with a current offset detected from the
operation of the direction indication device, the offset being a finite,
non-zero value; and
displaying an image in a second display range on the
portable display device, the image displayed in the second
display range being based on the set and further set attitude of
the virtual camera.

Appeal 2018-007781
Application 13/961,114

3

References and Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 3.
Claims 1–5 and 9–18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kasahara (U.S. Patent Publication No.
2011/0057880 A1; Mar. 10, 2011) (hereinafter Kasahara) in view of Takeda
et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0026166 A1; Feb. 2, 2012)
(hereinafter Takeda). Final Act. 4.
Claims 6–8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kasahara and Takeda as applied to claim 3 above, and
further in view of Hiroi et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0038677
A1; Feb. 16, 2012) (hereinafter Hiroi). Final Act. 9.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. With respect to the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion
and adopt them as our own. However, regarding the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) we are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the
Examiner erred.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1–18 as failing to comply
with the written description requirement because the limitation “before
displaying” is not described in Appellant’s Specification. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner finds “an image can be displayed before step S100 as shown
Appeal 2018-007781
Application 13/961,114

4
by the Appellant in figures 5–6 and [0061–0063].” Ans. 3.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must
reasonably convey to skilled artisans that Appellant possessed the claimed
invention as of the filing date. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The exact level of detail
required in the disclosure depends upon “the nature and scope of the claims
and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id.
We agree with Appellant’s contentions that the Specification reasonably
conveys possession of the claimed subject matter. App. Br. 10–13; Reply
Br. 2–4 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 87–95, and Figure 9).
In particular, we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that steps [A] and [B] are performed before the image
is displayed in step [C] in the annotated drawing below of Figure 9 of the
Specification. (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3).

Appeal 2018-007781
Application 13/961,114

5

FIG. 9 shows an annotated flowchart of a non-limiting example of
second half of the processing operation executable by the information
processing device 3.

Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (App. Br. 13–15; Reply Br. 4–5) that the Examiner has erred, but
we disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. The Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response, supported by sufficient evidence, to each of the
contentions raised by Appellant. See Ans. 3–6. We adopt as our own (1) the
Appeal 2018-007781
Application 13/961,114

6
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (id.). We
highlight the following points for emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Kasahara teaches all the
recited claim limitations, but not “setting an attitude of a virtual camera in a
three-dimensional virtual space,” for which the Examiner relies on Takeda.
See Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner finds the combination would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to set a virtual camera in a virtual
space as taught by Takeda into Kasahara with the benefit that virtual camera
should be used to define the changing view in 3D space as stated by Takeda
in [0059].” Final Act. 6.
Appellant contends the combination of Kasahara and Takeda fails to
teach or suggest:
before displaying an image using the attitude of the virtual camera set
in accordance with the current attitude of the portable display device,
further setting the attitude of the virtual camera in the virtual space in
accordance with a current offset detected from the operation of the
direction indication device, the offset being a finite, non-zero value;
and
displaying an image in a second display range on the portable display
device, the image displayed in the second display range being based
on the set and further set attitude of the virtual camera, as required by
independent claim 1 and its dependents. Similar comments apply to
independent claims 15–17.

App. Br. 13.

In particular, Appellant contends “Kasahara has first a scroll mode,
then a drug mode which are used in combination only in a sequential
Appeal 2018-007781
Application 13/961,114

7
fashion. Both inputs are not used at once as in the invention of claim 1.”
Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, claim 1

does not recite scroll and drug operation (both) at the same time
as appear to be argued by the Appellant. Claim 1 does not recite that
the device does not display an image after only using attitude of the
portable device, or before displaying any image using the attitude of
the portable device, further setting the attitude of the virtual camera as
appear to be argued by the Appellant.
…
Kasahara teaches in figures 9 a-c and [0077], user can make browsing
without complicated operations by combination of the tilt of the
casing 10a and the screen operation. In addition, [0077] recites a
seamless transition is made from the scroll mode to the drug mode,
and fine adjustment of the display screen is performed by a GUI
operation or the like. Thus, Kasahara disclose using both the
attitude of the device and the offset from the direction device
according to [0077] and figures 9a-c during scroll and drug.

Ans. 4–5.
In other words, with respect to Appellant’s contention about using the
scroll mode and the drug mode in a sequential fashion, we agree with the
Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language,
consistent with the Specification, does not preclude Kasahara’s sequential
operations.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s position with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1,
and 15–17, as well as the remaining dependent claims, which are not argued
separately. See App. Br. 13–15. We, therefore, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claims 1–18.

Appeal 2018-007781
Application 13/961,114

8
CONCLUSION

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18 112(a) Written Description

1–18
1–5, 9 – 18 103(a) Kasahara, and Takeda 1–5, 9 – 18

6 – 8 103(a) Kasahara, Takeda, and
Hiroi
6 – 8

Outcome

1–18

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED