NINTENDO CO., LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 20212020006088 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/725,601 10/05/2017 Shigetoshi GOHARA RYM-723-4556 5637 27562 7590 04/30/2021 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER MCCLELLAN, JAMES S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2021 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 SHIGETOSHI GOHARA ____________ Appeal 2020-006088 Application 15/725,6011 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2020-006088 Application 15/725,601 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention “relates to a game system with a haptic feedback function.” (Spec. ¶ 2.) Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative. It recites: 1. A game system comprising: a controller; a vibrator configured to vibrate with a specified intensity and; at least one processor configured to: enable a player character to move within a virtual space based on operation of the controller; and detect a contact between the player character and an uninvadable obstacle object, and cause the vibrator to vibrate with an intensity varying based on a traveling direction of the player character with respect to the obstacle object in a case where the operation of the controller directs the player character toward the obstacle object while the contact is continued. REJECTION Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Carlson (US 6,283,859 B1, iss. Sept. 4, 2001). ANALYSIS “[A]n invention is anticipated if the same device, including all the claim limitations, is shown in a single prior art reference. Every element of the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). If the prior art reference does not expressly set forth a particular element of the claim, that reference still may anticipate Appeal 2020-006088 Application 15/725,601 3 if that element is “inherent” in its disclosure. To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence “must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1746, 1749 (Fed.Cir.1991). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. at 1269, 948 F.2d 1264, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1749 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 U.S.P.Q. 323, 326 (C.C.P.A.1981)). In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Examiner finds that claim 1 is anticipated by Carlson. (Non-Final Action 2–3.) In relevant part, the Examiner finds that “[i]n column 16, Carlson discloses various force feedback sensations, including jarring vibrations. It is the Examiner’s position that when a racecar continuously steers into a wall it would cause vibrations.” (Answer 7.) Carlson discloses a haptic interface system, also known as a force feedback system, compris[ing] a motor for supplying actuating energy and a magnetically-controllable device that transfers the actuating energy into force feedback sensations. The magnetically- controllable device contains a magnetically-controllable medium beneficially providing variable resistance forces in proportion to the strength of an applied magnetic field. (Carlson, Abstract.) Carlson discloses that “the operator’s manipulations of the haptic interface device are affected by the applied resistance forces, or force feedback, and the applied resistance forces are dependent upon the manipulations of the operator.” (Id. at col. 16, ll. 11–14.) Figure 2 of Carlson is reproduced below. Appeal 2020-006088 Application 15/725,601 4 Figure 2 “is a perspective view of one embodiment of a haptic interface unit according to the [Carlson] invention.” (Id., at col. 6, ll. 20–21.) Carlson discloses that the haptic interface system 10 imparts force resulting in active force feedback sensations to operator 12 through haptic interface device 18 to simulate the feel, for example, of jolting blasts, rigid or soft surfaces, viscous liquids, increased gravity, compliant springs, jarring vibrations, grating textures, heavy masses, gusting winds, and any other physics phenomenon that can be represented mathematically and computed by computer system 20. (Id. at col. 16, ll. 58–65.) For example, if that computer system 20 is running a race car driving interactive program, and operator 12 attempts to move haptic interface device 18 in a direction that steers the race car to deflect off of a non-destructible wall, the computer system controls magnetically-controllable device 14 to transfer energy from motor 16 to impart an impulse force to haptic interface device 18 upon impacting the wall. Additionally, as long as operator 12 continues to steer into the wall, magnetically- controllable device 14 and motor 16 provide resistance forces equal to or greater than the force applied to the haptic interface device 18 by the operator to simulate the immovable, non- destructible feel of the wall. Appeal 2020-006088 Application 15/725,601 5 (Id. at col. 7, ll. 38–49.) In short, Carlson discloses imparting an impulse force as well as resistance forces to a haptic interface device. With regard to the race car example, the Examiner finds that Carlson discloses that “as long as operator 12 continues to steer into the wall, magnetically-controllable device 14 and motor 16 provide resistance forces equal to or greater than the force applied to the haptic interface device (18) by the operator to simulate the immovable, non-destructible feel of the wall” (emphasis by the Examiner). That is, when an operator continuously steers a racecar into a wall, the car will continue to move with some speed. (Answer 8.) The Examiner finds that “Carlson provides a vibration variable intensity that is dependent on speed and based on the operation of the controller assuming that there is no obstacle object because the racecar is still permitted to continuously be steered into the wall.” (Id. (italicized emphasis added).) Appellant argues that “although the opposing forces generated by Carlson are ‘haptic’ in nature, they do not appear to be vibrations. Instead, they are ‘opposing forces’ that apparently make the wheel more or less difficult to turn depending on the specific situation encountered.” (Appeal Br. 14–15.) As noted above, Carlson discloses imparting an impulse force as well as resistance forces to the haptic interface device. With respect to the resistance forces, Carlson’s system “provides a signal that directs magnetically-controllable device 14 to provide a variable amount of resistance that transfers energy from motor 16 to provide a force feedback that opposes the force applied by operator 12 to haptic interface device 18.” (Carlson, col. 7, ll. 52–56.) With respect to the impulse force, Carlson’s Appeal 2020-006088 Application 15/725,601 6 system “imparts force resulting in active force feedback sensations to operator 12 through haptic interface device 18 to simulate the feel, for example, of jolting blasts, . . . jarring vibrations, . . . and any other physics phenomenon that can be represented mathematically and computed by computer system 20.” (Id. at col. 16, ll. 58–65.) One might infer that the “jarring vibrations” and “impulse force” vary based on the nature of the impact, e.g., varying based on a traveling direction of a race car with respect to an obstacle object, but the Examiner does not indicate where this is expressly set forth in Carlson. (See, e.g., Answer 8 (“[T]he Examiner believes that a vibration force feedback would be used to simulate the sensation of continuously steering a racecar into a wall.”).) And although the cited portions of Carlson expressly disclose providing varying resistance forces as long as the operator continues to steer into the wall (Carlson, col. 7, ll. 38–49), the cited portions do not expressly disclose that the impulse force is a vibration vibrating with varying intensity. With regard to the vibrator itself recited in claim 1, the Examiner cites to element 18 of Carlson, i.e., “a haptic interface device such as a steering wheel.” (See Non-Final Action 2; see also Carlson, col. 6, ll. 36–37 & Fig. 2.) The Examiner does not clearly indicate what element(s) in Carlson would cause the interface device, e.g., the steering wheel, to vibrate with varying intensity. Nor does the Examiner sufficiently explain why Carlson’s recitation of simulating “jarring vibrations” makes clear that this would be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as causing a vibrator to vibrate with a varying intensity, and more specifically, with an intensity varying based on a traveling direction of a player character with respect to an uninvadable obstacle object. Appeal 2020-006088 Application 15/725,601 7 Therefore, we will reverse the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Carlson. Independent claims 7, 8, and 14–18 contain similar language. For the reasons discussed, we will reverse the rejection of these claims, and of dependent claims 2–6, 9–13, 19, and 20. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is reversed. Specifically: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 102(a)(1) Carlson 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation