Ex Parte Sterchi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2014

11077202 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HENRY STERCHI and JEFF MILLER
____________________

Appeal 2012-010368
Application 11/077,202
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
25–39 and 104–109. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a baseball videogame. Claim 25,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
25. In a baseball videogame, wherein animated action is
performed by a pitcher character in response to input by a user
provided through a user-operable controller, a method of
controlling game play comprising:
Appeal 2012-010368
Application 11/077,202

2
receiving user input from the user-operable controller
requesting a pitch by the pitcher character, the pitch having a
certain amount of spin;
monitoring user input from the user-operable controller
requesting an additional amount of spin to be added on the
pitch; and
performing the pitch of a baseball from the pitcher
character, the pitch having the certain amount of spin plus the
additional amount of spin when the user input requesting an
additional amount of spin has been received.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bromley
Lipson
US 4,552,360
US 5,435,554
Nov. 12, 1985
Jul. 25, 1995

REJECTIONS
Claims 25, 26, 28–31, 33–36, 38, 39 and 104–-109 are rejected under
35 § U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lipson and Bromley. Ans. 4.
OPINION
Appellants succinctly point out the deficiency in the Examiner’s
reliance on Bromley (Ans. 5 (citing Bromley (col. 10, ll. 24–26)) in rejecting
each of the claims on appeal:
Bromley relates to the end results rather than reasonably
suggesting anything about underlying factors that might
possibly affect those end results. In other words, although
Bromley teaches inputting a tendency to drop directly, it makes
no statements -- and does not teach or suggest anything --
regarding whether or how the type of spin that could possibly
be used to cause this end result of an additional amount of spin
being added to the pitched ball.
App. Br.15.
Appeal 2012-010368
Application 11/077,202

3
We adopt Appellants’ reasoning as our own. Accordingly, the
rejections as set forth by the Examiner cannot be sustained.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

REVERSED

Klh