Ex Parte NOJIRI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

12953947 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/953,947 11/24/2010
23373 7590 03/25/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shinta NOJIRI
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.
Ql21891 4420
EXAMINER
MYHR, JUSTIN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHINT A NOJIRI
Appeal2013-010987
Application 12/953,947 1
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shinta Nojiri (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--14. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Konami Digital
Entertainment Co., Ltd. Br. 2 (filed May 2, 2013).
Appeal2013-010987
Application 12/953,947
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a "game device, a control method for
a game device, and an information storage medium." Spec. 1, 11. 13-14.
Claims 1, 6, and 8-14 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A game device, comprising:
a first operation member;
a second operation member;
a first point control section for causing a first point,
which is set in a game space, to move based on a state of the
first operation member;
a second point control section for causing a second point,
which is set in the game space, to move based on a state of the
second operation member;
an object control section for controlling a position and a
posture of an item, which is located in the game space, based on
a position of the first point and a position of the second point;
and
a display control section for displaying the item on a
game screen,
wherein:
the item is held by a game character in the game space;
the first point control section causes the first point to
move based on the state of the first operation member in a first
region, which is set based on a position of the game character;
the second point control section causes the second point
to move based on the state of the second operation member in a
second region, which is set based on the position of the game
character,
the first region forms a first object and the second region
forms a second object, the first object and the second object
being different from the thing held by the game character and
being located in the game space based on the position of the
game character;
2
Appeal2013-010987
Application 12/953,947
the first point control section causes the first point to
move on a surface of or inside of the first object based on the
state of the first operation member; and
the second point control section causes the second point
to move on a surface of or inside of the second object based on
the state of the second operation member.
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review: 2
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4---6, and 8-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Koike (US 2002/0093524 Al,
pub. July 18, 2002). 3
II. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Koike in view of Nishimura (US
2002/0193156 Al, pub. Dec. 19, 2002).
ANALYSIS
The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 11, and 12
The Examiner finds that Koike teaches all of the elements of
independent claims 1, 11, and 12. See Final Act. 2-5. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that the displayed left hand HL and right hand HR of Koike
constitute a "first point [] mov[ing] on a surface of or inside of [a] first
object" and a "second point mov[ing] on a surface of or inside of [a] second
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1, 4---6, and 9-12
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. See Ans. 2
(mailed June 20, 2013).
3 Although claims 11-14 are not cited in the heading of this rejection,
because they are discussed in the body of the rejection, we consider this to
be a mere typographical error on the part of the Examiner. See Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2013-010987
Application 12/953,947
object," respectively. See Final Act. 3-5, 9-11; see also Koike, Fig. 12.
According to the Examiner, Koike' s left hand HL and right hand HR "are
properly considered a first object and a second object." Ans. 3 (citing
Koike, para. 88). The Examiner further explains that the claimed first and
second points are "skeletal reference points" of Koike' s left and right hands
HL, HR that are used by Koike' s game device as a "coordinate reference"
system for facilitating movement of the left and right hands. Id. at 5.
In response, Appellant argues that the Examiner's interpretation of
Koike' s hands HL and HR is in error because the hands in Koike cannot be
both the claimed "points" and the claimed "objects." Br. 23. According to
Appellant, Koike does not teach moving the first and second points on a
surface or inside of the first and second objects, respectively, as called for by
each of independent claims 1, 11, and 12. See id.
Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. In re Am. A cad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 3 67
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, we do not agree with the
Examiner's position that a reasonable interpretation of the phrase "on a
surface of or inside of' means that points can move with objects as objects
move. See Ans. 4 ("Basically as the points are moved so do[] the objects
move."). Such an interpretation is inconsistent with Appellant's
Specification which describes first point 80 moving along surface 92 of first
object 90 and second point 82 moving along surface 96 of second object 94.
See Spec. 17, 11. 17-19; Spec. 19, 11. 15-19; Figs 8, 10. The claim language
is explicit and consistent with the Specification in its recitation that first and
second points move "on a surface of or inside of' first and second objects,
respectively. See Br. 59, 64, and 65. We thus agree with Appellant that if
4
Appeal2013-010987
Application 12/953,947
the hands in Koike are both the claimed "points" and the claimed "objects,"
as the Examiner finds, an absurd result is obtained because the left hand and
the right hand cannot each move itself "along a surface or inside of itself," as
required by the claims. See Br. 23. Moreover, with respect to the
Examiner's reference to a "skeletal reference point," we note that because a
"skeletal reference point" is part of a coordinate system, the skeletal
reference point maintains a fixed position relative to any point on the object,
regardless of the amount of object movement. In other words, a "skeletal
reference point" does not move "on a surface of or inside of' an object
because as the object, i.e., hands HL, HR, moves, the skeletal reference point
would likewise move with the object.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 11, and 12, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Koike.
The anticipation rejections of claims 6, 9, and 10
Each of independent claims 6, 9, and 10 requires, inter alia, a control
of "the position and the posture of the item so that a longitudinal direction of
the item is substantially parallel with a direction determined based on a
direction extending from the first point to the second point." Br. 60, 62, and
63.
The Examiner finds that Koike teaches all the elements of
independent claims 6, 9, and 10. See Final Act. 5-9. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Kioke teaches:
[C]ontrol[ling] the position and the posture of the object so that
a longitudinal direction of the object is substantially parallel
with a direction determined based on a direction extending from
5
Appeal2013-010987
Application 12/953,947
the first point to the second point (Fig. 12 pots is longitudinal
and its shapes and direction are controlled by distance and
direction of the objects with the object direction changing for
example in a parallel direction when the palms of the hands are
applied since the object is manipulated in all three dimensions).
Id. at 6. According to the Examiner, because the claimed "parallel direction
is determined based . . . on the direction extending from the first point and
the second point," in Koike, the "palms of the hands are in a longitudinal
direction which causes the item [clay object CL] to extend in a longitudinal
direction based on the direction of the two points as they come together."
Ans. 5---6.
In response, Appellant annotates Koike' s Figure 12 to show that in
Koike the claimed directional relationship is perpendicular, rather than
parallel. See Br. 3 7.
Annotated Figure 12 of Koike is reproduced below:
Appellant's annotated Figure 12 of Koike depicts the a "longitudinal
direction" of clay object CL as tranverse to a direction extending from a first
point (HL) to a second point (HR). Id.
6
Appeal2013-010987
Application 12/953,947
Although we appreciate the Examiner's position that Koike' s hands
HL, HR are oriented in a longitudinal direction when deforming clay object
CL, nonetheless, because the claimed points are interpreted by the Examiner
as Koike's hands (see Final Act. 5), we agree with Appellant that the
claimed "direction extending from the first point to the second point" is
substantially transverse, not parallel, to the longitudinal direction of clay
object CL. See Br. 37, 41, and 45. In other words, when hands HL and HR
in Koike move to deform clay object CL, the direction extending from the
left hand to the right hand is perpendicular, not parallel, to the longitudinal
direction of the clay object item CL.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 6, 9, and 10, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Koike.
The anticipation rejection of claims 8, 13, and 14
Each of independent claims 8, 13, and 14 requires, inter alia,
"acquiring a change direction of the position and the posture of the item as
a basic direction in a case where a change amount of the position and the
posture of the item per predetermined time period is larger than a reference
amount." Br. 61, 66, and 67.
The Examiner finds that Koike teaches all the elements of
independent claims 8, 13, and 14. Final Act. 6-7. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Koike teaches "using operation member 70 to control
the left hand (first point) and operation member 72 to control the right hand
(second point) in order to modify an object [CL] including its position and
posture." Id. at 7.
7
Appeal2013-010987
Application 12/953,947
Appellant concedes that Koike shows determining a change in force
per unit time, but argues that Koike fails to teach the claimed "change
direction." See Br. 48. According to Appellant, "Koike does not evaluate
the direction of the [operating] input." Id. Appellant further argues that,
"Koike fails to disclose the claimed reference amount." See id. at 49.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments because as the
Examiner correctly finds, by deforming clay object CL in Koike, a change in
direction of the position and the posture of the clay object CL occurs. See
Ans. 6. In other words, deformation of clay object CL also brings about a
change in direction of the position and the posture of clay object CL. For
example, in Figures 19-21 of Koike, deforming clay object CL to form a
mug without handles, cutting the resulting mug using cut-off string 517, and
then lifting the resulting mug from wheel PW includes changes in direction
of the position and the posture of the clay object CL. See Koike, paras.
113-116. Appellant has not persuasively argued otherwise.
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the reference
amount "would be any reference amount required to overcome an ideal state
of no input on a controller, including force greater than zero." See Ans. 6.
Appellant's conclusory argument that a reference amount of zero would
eviscerate the last two limitations of claims 8, 13, and 14 (see Br. 49, 52, and
55) is not persuasive because attorney argument cannot take the place of
evidence in the record. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As the Examiner correctly finds, "no change will occur till at least a
reference amount of zero is overcome[] by the controller." Final Act. 13.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 8, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Koike.
8
Appeal2013-010987
Application 12/953,947
The obviousness rejection
The Examiner's use of the disclosure of Nishimura does not remedy
the deficiencies of Koike as described supra with respect to the rejection of
claim 1. See Final Act. 12. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed
above, we also do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
dependent claim 7 as unpatentable over Koike and Nishimura.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 4--14 is affirmed as to
claims 8, 13, and 14, and reversed as to claims 1, 4--7, and 9-12.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9