Ex Parte Ikeda

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 2013

11404871 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AKIO IKEDA ____________________ Appeal 2011-009460 Application 11/404,871 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009460 Application 11/404,871 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13-15, 18-23, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, and 35-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bouton (US 5,551,701; iss. Sep. 3, 1996), Paley (US 5,296,871; iss. Mar. 22, 1994), Ishino (US 2001/0010514 A1; pub. Aug. 2, 2001), and Herder (US 5,986,644; iss. Nov. 16, 1999). Claims 1-12, 16, 17, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, and 34 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 13, 30, 32, 36, 44, 45, and 50 are independent. Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 13. A game controller arrangement operable by at least one human player, the game controller arrangement comprising first and second control units, one of the first and second control units, in use, sending operating data obtained from the first control unit and the second control unit to a video game console providing video game play, the game controller arrangement comprising: a first control unit structured to be held in the air by and operated by a first hand, said first control unit including a first control unit body having disposed therein at least one sensor comprising a linear acceleration sensing arrangement that detects linear acceleration or a gyro-sensor that detects angular rate of rotation; a second control unit structured to be held in the air by and operated by a second hand, said second control unit including an imaging section that detects plural infrared markers and obtains marker coordinate related information therefrom, said second control unit further including at least one digit-operated control; and Appeal 2011-009460 Application 11/404,871 3 a wireless connection that wirelessly connects the first control unit with the second control unit, wherein the first control unit further includes a first operating data generator coupled to said sensor that provides first operating data sensed by said sensor, said first operating data in use controlling at least a first aspect of game play provided by said video game console; the second control unit further includes a second operating data generator coupled to said imaging section that generates second operating data in response to the image section and position of the digit-operated control, said second operating data in use controlling at least a second aspect of game play provided by said video game console; and one of the first and second control units further includes a wireless transceiver for wirelessly transmitting the first operating data from the first control unit and the second operating data from the second control unit wirelessly to the video game console to thereby at least in part control said video game play. OPINION In the rejection of each of the independent claims, the Examiner acknowledges that Bouton fails to disclose hand-held controllers with one of the controllers containing an acceleration sensor or a gyro-sensor and another of the controllers including an imaging section that detects infrared markers and also fails to disclose wireless transmission between the controllers. Ans. 4-6, 13-20, 23-27. The Examiner explains that it would have been obvious to modify the desktop controllers of Bouton to be hand- held and to include a linear acceleration sensing arrangement or a gyro- sensor in one of Bouton’s controllers based on the disclosure of Paley in order to provide a more ergonomic controller and more gaming options for players, and as a substitution of one known element for another. Ans. 5, 14, 16, 19, 23-26. Similarly, the Examiner explains that it would also have been Appeal 2011-009460 Application 11/404,871 4 obvious to include an imaging section that detects infrared markers in another one of Bouton’s controllers based on the disclosure of Ishino in order to provide a more ergonomic controller and more gaming options for players, and as a substitution of one known element for another. Ans. 6, 14, 19-20, 26. Appellant challenges the Examiner’s rationale for the rejections. See App. Br. 22-42. Even assuming that one skilled in the art would modify Bouton’s controllers to be hand-held as a more ergonomic controller design, the Examiner does not explain, and we do not see, how the further modification to the controllers of Bouton proposed by the Examiner to include a linear acceleration sensing arrangement or a gyro-sensor in one of Bouton’s controllers based on the disclosure of Paley, or to include an imaging section in another one of Bouton’s controllers based on the disclosure of Ishino, provides a more ergonomic controller. The Examiner’s additional rationale for the inclusion of a linear acceleration sensing arrangement or a gyro-sensor in one of Bouton’s controllers, or an imaging section in another one of Bouton’s controllers, are also not persuasive. The Examiner’s explanation that one skilled in the art would have incorporated these features from Paley and Ishino into Bouton’s controllers because the proposed modification would “provide[] more gaming options for the players” (Ans. 5) is essentially a conclusory statement that provides no explanation as to why such an arrangement would have been obvious or what additional gaming options are even provided by the proposed modifications. The Examiner’s further rationale that it would have been obvious to include a linear acceleration sensing arrangement or a gyro-sensor in one of Bouton’s controllers or an imaging section in another Appeal 2011-009460 Application 11/404,871 5 one of Bouton’s controllers as a simple substitution of one known element for another does not address the essence of a substitution (i.e., one element is replaced by another). The Examiner has not proposed substituting a linear acceleration sensing arrangement, a gyro-sensor, or an imaging section for any of the components of Bouton’s controllers and, instead, simply proposes adding features to Bouton’s controllers without adequately explaining why the addition would have been obvious. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 30, 32, 36, 44, 45, and 50 or claims 14, 15, 18-23, 26, 27, 33, 35, 37-43, 46-49, and 51 which depend from claims 13, 30, 32, 36, 44, 45, or 50. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13-15, 18-23, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, and 35-51. REVERSED mls