Ex Parte Akahori et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

11797558 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111797,558 0510412007
23117 7590 04/28/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eiji Akahori
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
DSG-723-2159 7924
EXAMINER
MCCULLOCH JR, WILLIAM H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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 EIJI AKAHORI, SHIN GO MIYATA, TOSHIHARU
IZUNO, TAKUJI HOTTA, and KENTARO NISHIMURA
Appeal2014-001545
Application 11/797,558
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-19 and 21, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-001545
Application 11/797,558
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A non transitory computer-readable storage medium storing
a game program instructing a computer of a game apparatus,
which is connected to a sound inputting device and a display, to
perform:
generating a game image including a player object, of a
virtual game world, which is operated by a player, and causing
the display to display the game image;
causing the player object to move in the virtual game
world;
determining whether a sound is inputted through the
sound inputting device;
determining whether the player object is positioned in a
specific area of the virtual game world; and
causing a body of the player object (a) to move in a
specific manner when the sound is inputted and the player
object is positioned in the specific area, and (b) not to move in
the specific manner, when the sound is inputted and the player
object is not positioned in the specific area, in order to avoid
unintended movement of the player object based on sound
received through the sound inputting device.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shimizu (US 2005/0288099 Al, pub. Dec. 29, 2005) and
SOCOM (SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Review,
http://www.gamerstemple.com/vg/games/OOO 165/000165r02.asp (last visited
Nov. 13, 2012)).
2
Appeal2014-001545
Application 11/797,558
DISCUSSION
Claims 1-3 and 6-19
Appellants group independent claims 1, 18, and 19 together in
contesting the rejection. See Appeal Br. 11-14. Further, Appellants do not
present any separate arguments for claims 2, 3, and 6-17, which depend
from claim 1. See id. at 11-17. Thus, we decide the appeal as to these
claims on the basis of claim 1, with claims 2, 3, and 6-19 standing or falling
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part:
causing a body of the player object (a) to move in a
specific manner when the sound is inputted and the player object
is positioned in the specific area, and (b) not to move in the
specific manner, when the sound is inputted and the player object
is not positioned in the specific area, in order to avoid unintended
movement of the player object based on sound received through
the sound inputting device.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Shimizu does not
disclose feature (b) because the "punching movement might ostensibly be
performed in locations away from the block as well as near." Final Act. 5.
Further, the Examiner determines "the SOCOM reference provides for a
single input to activate a number of different actions, the particular action
being dependent upon the player's location." Id. According to the Examiner:
SOCOM teaches that "[i]n addition to the button controls, icons
appear along the bottom of the screen when an action is
possible, with the X button used to activate the action," the
actions including: open the door, throw the switch, restrain a
captive, defuse a bomb, hide a body, hit someone over the head,
or pick up weapons and ammunition (p. 1, par. 1 ). This
demonstrates a known control scheme using a single input, in
this case the X button, to perform a number of different actions
depending on the player character's location. Thus, while the X
3
Appeal2014-001545
Application 11/797,558
Id.
button might cause the player to defuse a bomb in a location
near a bomb, it would not cause that action near a door. Rather,
when near a door, the X button would cause the player to open
the door. Therefore, SOCOM teaches causing a body of the
player object (a) to move in a specific manner, when a
command is inputted and the player object is positioned in the
specific area (e.g., defuse a bomb when near a bomb), and (b)
not to move in the specific manner (defusing a bomb), when the
command is inputted and the player object is not positioned in
the specific area (e.g., open a door when near a door).
The Examiner then determines it would have been obvious to modify
Shimizu's sound input "to function as an action input which causes different
operations to take place based on a player's position, as taught by SOCOM
... in order to simplify the control scheme of Shimizu by allowing a single
input to perform multiple different commands based on the player's
location." Final Act. 6.
Appellants do not contest the Examiner's reasons for combining
Shimizu and SOCOM. Appeal Br. 11-13. Rather, Appellants submit the
combination does not result in the invention of claim 1, because SOCOM
fails to disclose:
causing a body of the player object ... not to move in the specific
manner, when the sound is inputted and the player object is not
positioned in the specific area, in order to avoid unintended
movement of the player object based on sound received through
the sound inputting device.
Id. at 14.
Appellants contend that "SOCOM is not avoiding unintended
movement of the player by not moving the player when an input is
performed and the player is not positioned in a specific area." Id. at 12-13.
4
Appeal2014-001545
Application 11/797,558
Appellants agree with the Examiner to the extent that "SOCOM allows for a
player to perform a particular movement (e.g., dismount) when the player
performs an input and the player is positioned in a particular area," but argue
that "SOCOM fails to positively describe that unintended movement is
avoided by not moving the player when an input is performed and the player
is not positioned in a specific area." Id. at 13. To emphasize this point,
Appellants posit that "SOCOM may still perform a movement on the player
character (e.g., discharge a weapon, lunge at a character) when the user
presses the 'X' button and the game is not displaying an action indicator."
Id.; see also Reply Br. 4 (theorizing that "SOCOM would move the player
object or discharge a weapon based on user input even if no action item is
present" and "thus SOCOM does not avoid unintended movement of a
player object when input is made under certain conditions.").
Appellants' argument is not commensurate with claim 1, which does
not require that all movement of the player object be avoided when the
sound is inputted and the player object is not positioned in the specific area.
The recitation "move in a specific manner," properly construed, refers to a
particular motion of the player object, for example, jumping or accelerating.
See Spec. Figs. 4, 11; i-fi-1 51, 53. Likewise, the recitation "not to move in the
specific manner," properly construed, requires that the player object not
perform said particular motion (i.e., not jumping or not accelerating) when
the player object is not positioned in the specific area of the virtual game
world (i.e., jump ramp or acceleration lane) even though sound is inputted;
this recitation does not preclude movement of the player object in a different
manner. See id., Fig. 5; f 52. Accordingly, the recitation "not move in the
specific manner" includes the player object not moving and also the player
5
Appeal2014-001545
Application 11/797,558
object moving in a manner that is not the same as the specific manner
associated with the specific area of the virtual game world.
As noted above, the Examiner finds that SOCOM "demonstrates a
known control scheme using a single input, in this case the X button, to
perform a number of different actions depending on the player character's
location." Final Act. 5. The Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's
finding. See Appeal Br. 12 (stating, "SOCOM thus describes ... where a
player can perform a particular action by pressing an input button after an
indicator is displayed in the game"); id. at 13 (stating, "SOCOM allows for a
player to perform a particular movement (e.g., dismount) when the player
performs an input and the player is positioned in a particular area").
Accordingly, when the SOCOM character (i.e., player object) is at a location
that is in the vicinity of a switch (i.e., positioned in a specific area of the
virtual game world), the available action, via the X button, for the SOCOM
character is to throw the switch, and an icon will appear on the screen
informing the player that the action is available. SOCOM 1.
On the other hand, using the example provided by the Appellants,
when the SOCOM character is mounted in the gun turret of a vehicle, a
dismount action is available and an icon appears on the screen informing the
player that the action is available. See Appeal Br. 12. When the SOCOM
character is positioned in the gun turret, the character is not positioned near
the switch (i.e., not positioned in the specific area of the virtual game world).
Also, when the SOCOM character is positioned in the gun turret, the action
to throw the switch is not available (i.e., the specific manner of movement is
throwing the switch, an action which the SOCOM character cannot
6
Appeal2014-001545
Application 11/797,558
accomplish when positioned in the gun turret because that option is not
made available).
The Examiner insists that the clause "in order to avoid unintended
movement of the player object based on sound received through the sound
inputting device" in claim 1 "simply expresses the intended result of the
process steps (a) and (b )"and, thus, cannot serve "to patentably distinguish
the claimed invention from the prior art." Ans. 13-16. Our disposition of
the rejection of claim 1 does not tum on whether the recitation "in order to
avoid the unintended movement of the player object based on sound
received through the sound inputting device" is merely an intended result, as
asserted by the Examiner, or a positive method step, as argued by the
Appellants, because we find that the combination of Shimizu and SOCOM
teaches avoiding unintended movement of the player object. As explained
above, when the SOCOM character is near a switch, the available and
intended action is to throw the switch. Thus, unintended movement of the
SOCOM character includes any action other than throwing the switch when
the character is located near a switch.
Because the action of dismounting the vehicle is not an available
action when the SOCOM character is located near a switch, SOCOM avoids
the unintended movement (i.e., dismounting the vehicle) when the player
character is near a switch and input is received (i.e., X button depressed).
Likewise, when the SOCOM character is not located near a switch, but,
instead, is located in the gun turret, the action of throwing the switch is an
unavailable and unintended movement. This unintended movement is
avoided because it is unavailable. Although the available action of
dismounting will be performed, this is an intended movement when the
7
Appeal2014-001545
Application 11/797,558
character is in the gun turret, and, thus, would not frustrate the avoidance of
the unintended movement.
For the reasons above, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-19. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-19 as being unpatentable over Shimizu and
SOCOM.
Claims 4 and 21
Appellants group claims 4 and 21 together. Appeal Br. 14--15. Thus,
we decide the appeal as to these claims on the basis of claim 4, with claim
21 standing or falling with claim 4.
The Examiner interprets the recitation "action which does not exert
any influence on the movement of the player object," set forth in claim 4, "to
mean that the player object is animated in some way but does not traverse
from its current position." Final Act. 7. Based on this interpretation, the
Examiner determines: "[t]he SOCOM teachings of throwing a switch or
picking up ammunition meet this feature since the player performs an action
but is stationary in terms of position. By contrast, the SOCOM teaching of
hiding a body requires the player character to change location to move the
body." Id.
Appellants' arguments do not specifically challenge the Examiner's
reasoning. Rather, Appellants argue:
Inasmuch as SOCOM fails to describe causing the body of the
player object not to move in a specific manner when sound is
input and the player object is not positioned in a specific area,
SOCOM also fails to disclose performing an action which does
not exert any influence on the movement of the player object,
when sound is input and the player is positioned outside of a
specific area.
8
Appeal2014-001545
Application 11/797,558
Appeal Br. 15, see also Reply Br. 5. Notably, Appellants do not point out an
error in the Examiner's interpretation of claim 4, which appears consistent
with Appellants' Specification. See Spec. i-f 12 (stating, "'the action which
exerts an influence on a movement of the player object' indicates an action
in which at least one of a position, moving direction and moving speed of
the player object is changed accordingly when the action is performed").
Further, Appellants do not specifically point out why the combination of
Shimizu and SOCOM does not teach the claim limitation in question, as
construed by the Examiner.
For the above reasons, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 4. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 4 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shimizu and
SOCOM.
Claim 5
The Examiner determines that Shimizu provides a player with a
specific challenge-"destroying the rock/stone/block that is 'hindering
progress "'-and when the player character in Shimizu is not positioned near
the rock (i.e., the specific challenge), the player character does not destroy
the rock. Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that this aspect of Shimizu
teaches the feature "(b) an action which does not exert any influence on the
success or failure of the specific challenge, when the sound is inputted
through the sound inputting device and the player object is positioned
outside the specific area of the virtual game world" of claim 5. Id.
Appellants argue that "Shimizu does not disclose or suggest that the
player object performs ... an action which does not exert any influence on
the success or failure of the specific challenge" because the Shimizu "player
9
Appeal2014-001545
Application 11/797,558
character will still perform some type of action related to the success or
failure of destroying the rock (e.g., the player character will swing even
though the character may not be near the rock)." Appeal Br. 16-17.
Appellants characterize this as an action that "would essentially result in a
'failure' of completion for the specific challenge." Id. at 16. According to
Appellants, the action of punching which results in a failure to destroy the
rock "still perform[ s] an action exerting influence on the success or failure
of destroying the rock." Id. at 1 7.
The Examiner identifies three different scenarios in Shimizu. The
first scenario is pictured in Figure 1 O(A) where the player character is within
reach of the rock, has an ability value of "20," and successfully breaks the
rock with a punching motion; the second scenario is featured in Figure 1 O(B)
where the player character is within reach of the rock, has an ability of" 10,"
and fails to break the rock with a punching motion. See Ans. 25-26;
Shimizu i-f 98. The last scenario is where the player character is outside of
arm's reach of the rock, the ability level is unknown, and the player
character makes a punching motion. See Ans. 24. In the last scenario, the
Examiner asserts that "[t]here is simply no way the character can exert
influence on the success or failure of the specific challenge of breaking the
rock when [the character] cannot reach [the rock]." Id.
We agree with the Examiner. In the third scenario, the punching
motion of the character clearly does not exert any influence on the success of
the specific challenge (i.e., breaking a rock that hinders the path) because the
punching motion does not make contact with the rock and, therefore, cannot
successfully destroy the rock (i.e., punching motion does not exert an
influence on the success of the specific challenge). Further, in the third
10
Appeal2014-001545
Application 11/797,558
scenario, the punching motion also does not exert influence on the failure of
the specific challenge because the punching motion does not hinder breaking
of the rock when the character in Shimizu is outside the area of the specific
challenge. Appellants' assertion that a punching motion taken too far away
from the rock comprises a "failure" to break the rock, while factually
accurate, is not commensurate with the claim language. Claim 5 requires
that the action does not exert any influence on the success or failure of
breaking a rock. A punch taken too far away from the rock satisfies that
requirement.
For the above reasons, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 5. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shimizu and
SOCOM.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimizu and SOCOM is
AFFIRMED.
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
11