Ex Parte Asuke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2014

11790349 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHIGEYUKI ASUKE, MASATAKA TAKEMOTO, and
KIYOSHI KOUDA
____________________

Appeal 2012-001237
Application 11/790,349
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shigeyuki Asuke et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–12, and 14–17. Appeal
Br. 5. Claims 2 and 13 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-001237
Application 11/790,349
2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a game apparatus and a non-transitory
computer readable storage medium storing a game program executed by a
game apparatus’ computer. Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
storing a game program executed by a computer of a game
apparatus that displays on a display device a state of rotation of
a field in which a player character capable of being operated by
a player is placed, said game program allowing said computer
to execute:
placing said player character within a first field formed
by a plurality of objects and displaying on said display device a
state of the first field containing at least the player character;
rotating said first field through a predetermined degree of
angle, wherein the predetermined degree of angle is 90 degrees,
180 degrees or 270 degrees, when a predetermined requirement
is satisfied and displaying a state of the rotation on said display
device;
re-placing the player character placed in said first field,
in a second field previously formed by a plurality of objects so
as to be displayed in a manner identical to the first field rotated
through said predetermined degree of angle when the rotation
process of said first field has completed and of displaying on
said display device a state of the second field containing at least
the player character;
a first contact determination of whether an object in the
first field and said player character have made contact when
said first field is displayed, and
a second contact determination of whether an object in
the second field and said player character have made contact
when said second field is displayed.

Appeal 2012-001237
Application 11/790,349
3

PRIOR ART
Naka et al.1 US 5,963,218 Oct. 5, 1999
(hereinafter “Naka”)
Goddard et al. US 6,104,402 Aug. 15, 2000
(hereinafter “Goddard”)
Miyamoto et al. US 6,155,926 Dec. 5, 2000
(hereinafter “Miyamoto”)
Hubrecht et al. US 2003/0117398 A1 June 26, 2003
(hereinafter “Hubrecht”)

GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–12, and 14–17 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Goddard, Hubrecht, and Miyamoto.

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Goddard discloses rotating a first field
through a predetermined degree of angle and re-placing a player character in
a second field so as to be displayed in a manner identical to the first field
rotated through the angle when the rotation process is completed. Ans. 5. In
particular, with reference to Figure 17, blocks S615 or S619, of Goddard, the
Examiner points out that “rotation takes place when controller data has x
value <> 0 which will cause the camera to turn right or left” and “[the]
character is pasted back into [the] background as shown in Fig. 16, S66 and
Fig. 18[.]” Id.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Goddard discloses that “the
background screen is imaged at all directions and then the background

1 We note that Naka is not cited in the heading or body of the Grounds of
Rejection of the Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 5-8.
Appeal 2012-001237
Application 11/790,349
4

objects and the moving object are synthesized to be displayed” and that
“[s]uch all-direction imaging is completely different from rotating the first
field to display the second field.” Appeal Br. 14.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2D 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the “synthesizing
process” described in Goddard, and relied upon by the Examiner, does not
suggest the limitations relating to field rotation, as claimed. Rather,
Goddard teaches parallel rotation that shifts the background scene rightward
or leftward when the player or moving object is moved. For example,
Goddard discloses:
[A] process for displaying in combination [] the background
object and the moving object . . . based on the image data of the
. . . 6 planes on the front, rear, left, right, upper and lower of the
background scenes. This synthesizing process is achieved by a
subroutine flowchart shown in FIG. 16.
. . .
At a subsequent step 614, the moving object 1 in the three-
dimensional space is moved rightward. In interacting with this,
at a step 615 the camera 4 is gradually rotated through 360
degrees by being parallel moved from the front to the right
about the photograph position, thereby scrolling the background
scene from the right to the left (leftward scroll).
. . .
At a step 618, the displayed position of the moving object 1 in
the three-dimensional space is gradually moved to the left. At a
step 619, the camera 4 is parallel moved from the front to the
left about the photograph position, to be gradually rotated in the
left direction through 360 degrees, thereby scrolling the
background scene from the left to the right (rightward scroll).
Appeal 2012-001237
Application 11/790,349
5

Goddard, col. 14, ll. 16–64.
The scrolling process described in Goddard does not involve “rotating
said first field through a predetermined degree of angle . . . [and] re-placing
the player character placed in said first field, in a second field . . . so as to be
displayed in a manner identical to the first field rotated through said
predetermined degree of angle when the rotation process of said first field
has completed[.]” Claim 1. We also note that the Specification describes
the invention in the context of rotating the whole field and provides for a
scroll process, which is distinct from the rotation process. Spec. 1 and 29.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Examiner’s rejection
did not establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Because independent
claim 12 also requires rotating the first field through a predetermined degree
of angle and re-placing the player character in a second field so as to be
displayed in a manner identical to the first field rotated through said
predetermined degree of angle when the rotation process has completed, we
apply the same analysis as set forth above. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–12, and 14–17.

DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims rejecting claims 1, 3–12, and
14–17 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls