Ex Parte MatsunagaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 13, 201612633381 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2016) 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. 12/633,381 12/08/2009 Hiroshi MATSUNAGA MEN-723-2709 5563 27562 7590 12/15/2016 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER ILUYOMADE, IFEDAYO B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2695 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/15/2016 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): 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 HIROSHI MATSUNAGA Appeal 2016-003058 Application 12/633,381 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3—24, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to information processing. See generally Spec. 1. Appeal 2016-003058 Application 12/633,381 Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A non-transitory storage medium storing an information processing program, wherein said information processing program causes a computer of an information processing apparatus to perform functionality comprising: detecting a coordinate position on a screen on the basis of a signal from a coordinate input device to be operated by a user; detecting a barycentric position of said user on the basis of a signal from a barycentric position detecting device; and performing predetermined processing when the detected coordinate position is determined to be located within a first area at a substantially same time that the detected barycentric position is determined to be located within a second area. References and Rejections Claims 1 and 3—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 2008/0261696 Al; pub. Oct. 23, 2008) and Onda (US 2002/0055383 Al; pub. May 9, 2002). ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below.1 1 To the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). 2 Appeal 2016-003058 Application 12/633,381 Claim 1 Appellant contends Onda does not teach “performing predetermined processing when the detected coordinate position is determined to be located within a first area at a substantially same time that the detected barycentric position is determined to be located within a second area,” as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellant asserts “Onda does not detect a barycentric position of a player, nor is Onda detecting a coordinate position on a screen.” App. Br. 11; see also App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Because the Examiner relies on the combination of Yamazaki and Onda to teach the disputed claim limitation, Appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking Onda individually. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner finds—and Appellant does not dispute—Yamazaki teaches “detecting a coordinate position on a screen on the basis of a signal from a coordinate input device to be operated by a user; detecting a barycentric position of said user on the basis of a signal from a barycentric position detecting device.” See Final Act. 3. Therefore, the combination, and Yamazaki in particular, teaches “detecting a coordinate position on a screen” and “detecting a barycentric position.” As a result, Onda does not need to teach such claim elements separately. Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 14—16. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of 3 Appeal 2016-003058 Application 12/633,381 corresponding dependent claims 3—13, 21, 22, and 24, which Appellant does not argue separately. Separately Argued Dependent Claims Regarding dependent claims 17—20, Appellant contends Onda does not teach “wherein the predetermined processing is performed by simultaneously using the detected coordinate position and the detected barycentric position.” See App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4. In particular, Appellant advances arguments similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4. As discussed above, such arguments are unpersuasive. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17— 20. Regarding dependent claim 23, Appellant contends Onda does not teach “wherein the first area and the second area are located in a same area.” See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 5. In particular, Appellant advances arguments similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 5. As discussed above, such arguments are unpersuasive.2 Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23. 2 The Examiner finds—and Appellant does not offer any substantive argument to dispute—Onda teaches “located in the same area.” See Final Act. 16, Ans. 21. 4 Appeal 2016-003058 Application 12/633,381 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—24. 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation