Ex Parte Kando

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 2013

12076304 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YUJI KANDO ____________ Appeal 2012-000232 Application 12/076,304 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Yuji Kando (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-15, and 17-23. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-000232 Application 12/076,304 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program executed by a computer of a game apparatus for generating a two-dimensional game image representing a state of a three-dimensional game space acquired by a virtual camera so as to display the two- dimensional game image by a display device, the game program causing the computer to function as: a sight point pixel calculator for calculating a sight point pixel representing a pixel on the two-dimensional game image, the sight point pixel corresponding to a sight point of the virtual camera in the three-dimensional game space; a camera movement controller for moving the virtual camera in the three-dimensional game space in accordance with a direction from the sight point pixel on the two-dimensional game image to a target pixel representing a predetermined pixel; a number-of-pixels calculator for calculating a number of pixels included in a linear distance to the target pixel from the sight point pixel; and a movement rate setter for setting a movement rate of the virtual camera in accordance with the number of pixels calculated by the number-of-pixels calculator, wherein the camera movement controller moves the virtual camera in accordance with the movement rate having been set by the movement rate setter. See App. Br. Clms. Appx. (emphasis added). Appeal 2012-000232 Application 12/076,304 3 REJECTIONS Appellant requests our review of the following rejections. See App. Br. 10. Claims 1, 10-15, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2004/0224761 A1, pub. Nov. 11, 2004).1 Claims 3 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Miyamoto (US 6,454,652 B2, iss. Sep. 24, 2002). Claims 4, 5, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Miyamoto and Yamamoto (US 6,424,353 B2, iss. Jul. 23, 2002). Claims 6, 8, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Miyamoto and Suzuki (US 5,736,982, iss. Apr. 7, 1998). ANALYSIS The Examiner’s rejection is based, in part, on the finding that Nishimura discloses “a movement rate setter for setting a movement rate of the virtual camera in accordance with the number of pixels calculated by the number-of-pixels calculator” as recited in independent claims 1 and 15. See 1 The Final Office Action mailed October 25, 2010 (at pp. 2-5) rejected claims 1, 15, 17, and 22 as anticipated by Nishimura, and (at pp. 5-8) rejected claims 10-14 and 16 as unpatentable over Nishimura. The claims were then amended to incorporate the subject matter of dependent claim 16 into the independent claims 1 and 15. See Amendment of Jan. 25, 2011. The Appeal Brief addresses both anticipation and obviousness. See App. Br. 10-12. The Answer rejects claims as unpatentable over (not anticipated by) Nishimura. See Ans. 5-11. Nonetheless, the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief against the anticipation rejection also apply to the obviousness rejection made in the Answer, so we consider the arguments in that context. Appeal 2012-000232 Application 12/076,304 4 Ans. 6. In particular, the Examiner found the Nishimura virtual camera “move[s] at a predetermined ratio of total distance between camera and player in order to keep an optimal distance (i.e. point of regard).” Id. (citing Nishimura, figs. 5-7 and 9, and paras. [0010], [0056]-[0057], and [0060]). Appellant argues this analysis was in error. See App. Br. 12. The Nishimura passages cited by the Examiner pertinently disclose a “virtual-camera-location updating means” which moves the camera to follow a location of a player character. Nishimura, para. [0010]. The updating means operates to move the camera to shorten the distance between the player character location and an initial point-of-regard location designating a photographing direction of the camera. See id. paras. [0010] and [0056]. Specifically, the updated point-of-regard for the camera is determined to shorten the distance by a predetermined ratio. See id. paras. [0010], [0057], and [0060]. Figures 4 and 5 provide a step-by-step illustration of the Nishimura camera location updating means. See id. paras. [0062] and [0066]. Thus, Figure 5(A) shows an initial state of the game where the character 82 is not moving, and the camera 84 is arranged at a predetermined horizontal distance “d” away from the character 82. See id. paras. [0062] and [0068]. In that initial state, the camera’s point of regard is coincident with the character’s location. See id. Figure 5(B) illustrates the character 82 moving a horizontal distance “Δd” away from the camera 84, so that the camera 84 must move to maintain the character 82 within the camera’s point-of-regard. See id. paras. [0069]-[0070]. The movement of the camera 84 is achieved by first calculating Δd, which is equal to the distance between the character’s new location and the camera’s initial point-of-regard. See id. Appeal 2012-000232 Application 12/076,304 5 para. [0072]. As shown in Figure 5(C), the camera 84 is then moved to reduce that distance Δd by the predetermined ratio, thus bringing the camera’s point-of-regard closer to the character’s new location. See id. paras. [0073]-[0077] (illustration demonstrates a predetermined ratio of eighty (80) percent). Once the camera 84 has been moved to that new position, the position of the player character 82 is re-determined, and the camera 84 moved as necessary. See id. paras. [0080]-[0083]. According to the Examiner’s application of claims 1 and 15 to Nishimura, the claimed “sight point pixel” corresponds to the initial point- of-regard of the camera 84, the claimed “target pixel” corresponds to the new location of the character 82, and the claimed “number-of-pixels” is Δd. See Ans. 5-6. Thus, the “movement rate setter” claim limitation requires setting a “movement rate” of the camera 84 “in accordance with” Δd. The Examiner concluded the “movement rate setter” claim limitation is met by Nishimura simply because the camera’s 84 point-of-regard is moved a distance which is calculated as a predetermined ratio of the distance Δd. See Ans. 6. We disagree with that conclusion. Calculating a distance is not the same thing as calculating a “movement rate” by which the camera is translated or rotated to cover that distance. A “movement rate” must consider both the distance moved and the time it takes for the movement to occur. See, e.g., Substitute Spec. filed Aug. 12, 2010, paras. [0007] and [0026]-[0027] (differentiating between distance moved and rate of movement). That is, in order to disclose the “movement rate setter” limitation, Nishimura must disclose using the magnitude of the initial gap Δd to determine how fast the camera moves in order to change its point- of-regard. The Examiner therefore erred in concluding Nishimura meets the Appeal 2012-000232 Application 12/076,304 6 “movement rate setter” claim limitation simply because the distance by which the camera’s 84 point-of-regard is moved is calculated from Δd. For the foregoing reasons, we determine the Examiner’s findings before us for review fail to establish that Nishimura discloses the movement rate setter limitation of independent claims 1 and 15. In considering dependent claims 3-6, 8, 10-14, and 17-23, the Examiner does not rely on Miyamoto, Yamamoto, or Suzuki as being pertinent to that claim limitation. See Ans. 11-17. We therefore do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-15, and 17-23 as unpatentable over the prior art. DECISION The rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-15, and 17-23 as unpatentable over the prior art are each: REVERSED tkl