Ex Parte Nonaka et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 14, 201411984445 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte TOYOKAZU NONAKA, TOSHIHARU IZUNO, KENTARO NISHIMURA, KENTA TANAKA, NORIHITO ITO, and MASAYUKI OKADA ________________ Appeal 2012-008406 Application 11/984,445 Technology Center 3700 ________________ Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Toyokazu Nonaka, Toshiharu Izuno, Kentaro Nishimura, Kenta Tanaka, Norihito Ito, and Masayuki Okada (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–54. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-008406 Application 11/984,445 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention is directed to a game system and storage medium storing game program. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A game system comprising a game controller including a housing which is capable of being held with one hand of a player, a game apparatus in communication with the game controller, and a detection section for detecting an orientation of the housing, the game controller including at least a direction instruction section which is provided in the housing for receiving a direction instruction input, and the game apparatus including: a processor; and a memory coupled to said processor, said memory storing instructions that, when executed by said processor, control said processor to: determine a movement vector of an object, which appears in a virtual game world, in accordance with an operation of the direction instruction section; correct the determined movement vector in accordance with a change in the orientation of the housing from a reference orientation based on detection of the detection section; and control movement of the object in the virtual game world based on the corrected movement vector. REFERENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Bathiche US 7,145,551 B1 Dec. 5, 2006 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1–54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bathiche. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1–54 as anticipated by Bathiche. Appeal 2012-008406 Application 11/984,445 3 (I) Claim 1 recites, in part: game controller including at least a direction instruction section which is provided in the housing for receiving a direction instruction input. Emphasis added. Claim 1 further recites: a processor and a memory coupled to said processor, said memory storing instructions that, when executed by said processor, control said processor to: determine a movement vector of an object, which appears in a virtual game world, in accordance with an operation of the direction instruction section; correct the determined movement vector in accordance with a change in the orientation of the housing from a reference orientation based on detection of the detection section. Emphasis added. (II) The Examiner rejects claim 1 as anticipated by Bathiche. Regarding the controller and direction instruction section, the Examiner states: Bathiche teaches a game system (Fig. 2) comprising a game controller (14) including a housing which is capable of being held with one hand of a player (Fig. 1), a game apparatus (Fig. 2) in communication with the game controller (Fig. 2), and a detection section for detecting an orientation of the housing (108), the game controller including at least a direction instruction section which is provided in the housing for receiving a direction instruction input (col. 3, lines 25-27: direction pad). Ans. 4 (bold emphasis added). For the instructions recited in claim 1, the Examiner states the memory in Bathiche stores instructions that control the processor to determine a movement vector of Appeal 2012-008406 Application 11/984,445 4 an object which appears in a virtual game world (Fig. 3A), in accordance with an operation of the direction instruction section (col. 9, lines 12-27: pitch and roll), correct the determined movement vector in accordance with a change in the orientation of the housing from a reference orientation based on detection of the detection section (col. 6, lines 1-26: physical orientation of airplane changes with sensed movement of controller), and control movement of the object in the virtual game world based on the corrected movement vector (col. 6, lines 1-26: physical orientation of airplane changes with sensed movement of controller). Id. The Examiner’s position regarding the in-game relationship of (i) controlling the vector of the object in the virtual game world via the direction pad 26 and (ii) controlling the vector via a change in the orientation of the housing is as follows: Bathiche discloses two modes: sensor mode, where movement of the game controller is used to control the object on the screen, and game pad mode, where the screen object's movement is governed by inputs to the controller's directional pad. Switching between modes is accomplished by depressing a mode button (col. 9, lines 12-27). Thus, movement of the on screen object can be controlled by using the separate modes interchangeably: one for pitch, the other for roll, or vice-versa. The mode switch may be done in-game (col. 9 lines 25-27: switching between modes is accomplished by simply depressing the mode button). This is made explicit by Bathiche at col. 12, lines 20-30. Ans. 27. (III) Appellants traverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection, stating: [C]laim 1 recites determining a movement vector of an object in accordance with an operation of the direction instruction section and then correcting that movement vector in accordance with a change in the orientation of the game controller. Thus, the Appeal 2012-008406 Application 11/984,445 5 object's movement is controlled based on both the direction instruction input and the orientation of the housing. Bathiche does not teach or suggest this feature. Appeal Br. 23. Appellants further argue that Bathiche discloses movement control in two embodiments, and the Examiner has selectively picked portions of Bathiche in making the rejection of claim 1. Appellants state: Bathiche describes an embodiment with respect to Figs. 3A and 3B in which the movement of the controller controls movement of the object on the visual display (see col. 5, line 48 to col. 6, line 5). Then, Bathiche discloses an alternative embodiment in which the X and Y tilt sensors 108 are not used to control the physical orientation of the object on the visual screen. Rather, in this embodiment, the D-pad is used to control movement of the object on the display (see col. 8, lines 48-55). Thus, the Examiner is picking and choosing elements of different embodiments. Appeal Br. 23–24. Regarding the Examiner’s assertion that a user can switch control from the direction pad 26 to the “pitch and roll” mode in- game, Appellants state: Although the Examiner asserts that Bathiche discloses that the modes can be switched and thus the separate modes can be used interchangeably, claim 1 recites determining a movement vector of an object in accordance with an operation of the direction instruction section and then correcting the determined movement vector in accordance with a change in the orientation of the housing from a reference orientation based on detection of the detection section, which is not possible in Bathiche. Appeal Br. 24. Appellants supplement this argument in the Reply Brief and argue that “replacing” information that generates a vector is not the same as “correcting” the vector. Appellants state: Bathiche et al. discloses mode switching that replaces direction pad control information with orientation control information -- Appeal 2012-008406 Application 11/984,445 6 and because the direction pad control information is replaced, any movement vector it might generate is also replaced, not corrected, by the orientation control information. As such the comment on page 28 of the Examiner's Answer that "Bathiche discloses a game controller which allows a player to control an object using controller movement or actuation of a directional pad, or both" is incorrect and directly contrary to the disclosure of Bathiche et al. Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added). (IV) Claim 1 was rejected as anticipated by Bathiche. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Bathiche describes a computer input device 14 for controlling an object 104 in a display 16 as shown in figures 3A and 3B below. Appeal 2012-008406 Application 11/984,445 7 Figure 3A of Bathiche depicts the controller 14 from a left-side view as the controller controls an airplane 104 depicted on a display 104. Figure 3B of Bathiche depicts the controller 14 from a rear view as the controller is pointed toward the display 16 depicting the airplane 104. The computer input device 14 can operate in two modes, (i) the “sensor” mode, and (ii) the “discrete” or “game pad” mode. Bathiche, col. 8, ll. 37–53. In the sensor mode, tilt sensors 108 detect the orientation of the computer input device 14, which ultimately controls the object on the display. Id., col. 5, l. 66–col. 6, l.12 and col. 8, ll. 37–47. In the game pad mode, the tilt sensors 108 are not used; instead, a “multiple switch device 26,” e.g., “D-pad,” controls the object on the display. Id., col. 8, ll. 47–57. “Switching between modes is accomplished by simply depressing mode button 30.” Id., col. 9, ll. 26–27. The user can switch modes during a game, i.e., “on-the-fly.” Id., col. 12, l. 27. Contrary to Appellants’ statement on page 24 of the Appeal Brief asserting that “determining a movement vector of an object in accordance with an operation of the direction instruction section and then correcting the determined movement vector in accordance with a change in the orientation of the housing from a reference orientation based on detection of the detection section” is “not possible in Bathiche,” Bathiche discloses determining movement vectors based on either of two modes of operation, the sensor mode and the game pad mode. As noted above, the modes can be switched during game play. This means the user can use either of the modes to initially set a direction vector, then switch to the other of the modes without ending the game, and change the direction vector. Claim 1 does not require that when the processor “correct[s] the determined movement vector Appeal 2012-008406 Application 11/984,445 8 in accordance with a change in the orientation of the housing,” the processor does so with no change between modes of control. In other words, claim 1 does not preclude providing the controller with an additional input (such as switching modes) before the processor acts to correct the determined movement vector. Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellants that switching modes in Bathiche negates the fact that Bathiche discloses creating (and correcting) a movement vector for an object as recited in claim 1. On page 3 of the Reply Brief, Appellants assert “Bathiche et al. discloses mode switching that replaces direction pad control information with orientation control information -- and because the direction pad control information is replaced, any movement vector it might generate is also replaced, not corrected, by the orientation control information.” Appellants have not pointed to any evidence of record indicating the definition of the verb “to correct” does not reasonably include “to replace,” as the term “correct” is used in the Specification.1 Creating a movement vector and then replacing the movement vector with a different movement vector can reasonably be interpreted as correcting the movement vector. We see no error in the Examiner's position and affirm the rejection of claim 1. We also affirm the rejection of claim 46, which Appellants grouped with claim 1 on page 24 of the Appeal Brief. For the remaining rejected claims, Appellants have not provided arguments under separate subheadings as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37. 1 The first two dictionary definitions of “correct” are 1a) “to make or set right: AMEND,” 1b) “COUNTERACT, NEUTRALIZE.” WEBSTER’S TENTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 260 (1998). Appeal 2012-008406 Application 11/984,445 9 However, we address the comments under the heading for claims 1–54 as follows. Claims 11 and 47 Appellants state: [A]ccording to claim 11, a direction instruction is detected and movement of the housing is detected, and both of these are used in control movement of the object. As noted previously, Bathiche allows for selecting one mode, either a mode in which the direction pad is used or a mode in which the orientation of the housing is detected and used. In addition, Bathiche does not actually detect “movement” of the housing, rather it detects orientation. Appeal Br. 24–25 (emphasis added). The Examiner states, “Bathiche discloses a motion-sensitive game controller which comprises accelerometers (col. 7 lines 1-20). Accelerometers detect acceleration, which implies movement. Thus, Bathiche discloses a game controller which detects movement.” Ans. 28. We see no error in the Examiner’s position regarding the implication of detection of acceleration. Additionally, Appellants have not pointed to any definition of the word “movement” as this word is used in claim 11 that would exclude rotational movement (a change in orientation) as is disclosed in Bathiche from the scope of claim 11. As for Appellants’ arguments regarding the two modes of operation in Bathiche and that Bathiche replaces something rather than corrects it, we addressed these arguments above with respect to claim 1, and agree with the Examiner’s position. Claims 13, 21, 23, 24, 25, 35, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53 For independent claims 13, 21, 23, 24, 25, 35, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53, Appellants again argue, among other things, that the two modes of operation disclosed in Bathiche fail to correlate to the type of control Appeal 2012-008406 Application 11/984,445 10 recited in the claims. Appellants also argue there is a difference between “correct[ion]” as recited in the claims and “replacement” as disclosed in Bathiche. We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments for these claims and find no error in the Examiner’s positions. We further specifically comment on claims 25, 35, 52, and 53 because of their recitation of “displacement.” Claim 25 is representative and recites, in part, instructions that control a processor to: determine a displacement amount of the object in the virtual game world in accordance with a change in the orientation of the housing from a reference orientation based on detection of the orientation detector; and change the determined position of the object by the determined displacement amount, and control movement of the object. Appellants assert: Bathiche et al. discloses alternately controlling a visual display based on direction pad control information and orientation control information, but does not disclose using the two types of information so that position is determined in accordance with one type of control information and displacement amount in accordance with another type of control information as recited in claim 25. Reply Br. 6–7 (emphasis added). We disagree with Appellants because, as discussed in column 6, lines 1–26, Bathiche monitors the orientation of its computer input device 14 and maps the change in orientation of the computer input device 14 to the airplane 104 on screen. Appellants have not shown that the “displacement” recited in claim 25 excludes angular displacement. In Bathiche, the more the user tips the computer input device 14, the greater the angular Appeal 2012-008406 Application 11/984,445 11 displacement that is mapped to the airplane 104 on screen. The user may also push the mode button 30 to change control of the computer input device 14 from sensor mode to game pad mode (and back again), thus providing the second type of information mentioned in Appellants’ arguments. Bathiche, col. 9, ll. 26–27. Thus, both modes of input in Bathiche can be used to control the angular position (and angular displacement) of the airplane 104. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 25, 35, 52, and 53 as anticipated by Bathiche is sustained. Claim 54 As for claim 54, Appellants make arguments for this claim in the Reply Brief without making arguments in the Appeal Brief, and such arguments are not ordinarily addressed by the Board. See Ex Parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“conclud[ing] that the regulations set out in 37 C.F.R. § 41, Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, do not require the Board to consider such belated arguments”). However, inasmuch as the argument for claim 54 is substantially similar to arguments raised for the other argued claims, but the language of claim 54 appears to narrow one of the issues addressed previously for the other argued claims, we address claim 54 as follows. Claim 54 recites, in part: a processor configured to control at least one movement of the game object in the virtual game world based on both orientation data from the orientation sensor which is indicative of aspects of an orientation of the game controller and directional data from the multi –directional input device which is indicative of a directional input thereto. Emphasis added. Appeal 2012-008406 Application 11/984,445 12 The Examiner cites the same two-mode control disclosed in Bathiche for the features of claim 54. Ans. 26. In defense of claim 54, Appellants state, “Bathiche et al. discloses alternately controlling a visual display based on direction pad control information and orientation control information, but does not disclose using the two types of information so that movement is determined in accordance with both types of control information as recited in claim 54.” Reply Br. 11. We do not agree with Appellants’ position. Bathiche discloses a processor configured to control at least one movement of the game object in the virtual game world based on both orientation data from the orientation sensor which is indicative of aspects of an orientation of the game controller and directional data from the multi-directional input device. Although Bathiche requires switching between modes in order to accomplish the above noted control, claim 54 does not exclude such a configuration. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 54. DECISION Although we have carefully considered all of Appellants’ arguments, we are not persuaded that the positions taken by the Examiner with respect to the anticipation of claims 1–54 are in error. This being the case, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–54 as anticipated by Bathiche is affirmed. 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 mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation