Ex Parte Cho et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2016

11507020 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111507,020 08/21/2006
27562 7590 08/05/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wing Cho
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
723-1965 7191
EXAMINER
RENWICK, REGINALD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2016 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)
u-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WING CHO and DARREN SMITH
Appeal2014-006758
Application 11/507 ,020 1
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, JASON W. MEL VIN, and GORDON D. KINDER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MEL VIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a rejection of
claims 16, 18, and 38-57. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Nintendo Co. Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006758
Application 11/507 ,020
BACKGROUND
The claims are directed to a video game system with touchscreen
inputs. Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
16. A video game system, comprising:
a touch sensitive display screen; and
processing circuitry configured to detect an object movement
pattern drawn on the touch sensitive display screen and to
move a first game object when the object movement pattern
is drawn using a first color and to move a second different
game object when the object movement pattern is drawn
using a second different color,
wherein the object movement pattern drawn in the first color
specifies the movement of the first game object and the
object movement pattern drawn in the second color specifies
the movement of the second game object.
REJECTIONS
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 16, 18, and 38--49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable by Nishida (US 6,005,545; iss. Dec. 21, 1999) in
view of Best (US 7,445,549 Bl; iss. Nov. 4, 2008). 2 Final Act. 2-
4.
2. Claims 38, 39, 45, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Nishida, Best, and Zhai (US 2006/0253793
Al; pub. Nov. 9, 2006). Final Act. 4--5.
2 The rejection states that the rejection is under § 102(b ), but the Examiner
relies on two references and explains the rejection as an obviousness
rejection; additionally, the rejection appears under the heading "35 USC
2
Appeal2014-006758
Application 11/507 ,020
3. Claims 50-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishida, Best, and Madden 2003 (Madden 2003
Playstation2 Manual; Madden NFL 2003 Review,
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/367/367202pl.html, pub. Aug. 8, 2002).
Final Act. 5.
4. Claims 54--57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishida, Best, and Battle Bugs (Battle Bugs
Game Manual; Battle Bugs, MobyGames,
http://web.archive.org/web/20050528017 50/http://www.
mobygames.com/game/dos/battle-bugs, archived May 28, 2005).
Final Act. 5-7.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Nishida substantially teaches the limitations
of independent claim 16 but "fails to disclose a touch sensitive display
screen." Final Act. 3. For that element, the Examiner relies on Best and
reasons that "it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to simply
substitute the controller of Nishida with the controller of Best for the
purpose of allowing the players to directly see how their actions effect the
game." Id.
Nishida generally discloses a video game with "image processing
using pictures drawn on the monitor screen by a game player." Nishida
1 :33-36. The Examiner relies primarily on the "moving insect drawing
processing" example in Nishida, described from column 7, line 30 to column
§ 103." Final Act. 2. Appellants note the discrepancy and address the
rejection as made under§ 103 (Appeal Br. 13 n.1), as do we.
3
Appeal2014-006758
Application 11/507 ,020
11, line 53. See Final Act. 2-3. In that example, when a user draws a line of
a particular color on the screen, the game causes an insect corresponding to
that color to appear on the screen and move according to the line and other
objects on the screen. Nishida 7:30-11 :53. The Examiner finds that Nishida
teaches an object movement pattern as a "line drawn by the touch screen
pen," and that "a game object moves when an object movement pattern is
drawn, wherein each game object is associated with different colors."
Appeal Br. 2 (citing Nishida Fig. 20, 8:4--7, 8:9-26, 10:3-5, 12:63---65).
Appellants dispute how the Examiner has applied the claim, first
drawing a distinction between "game objects" and "inputs that a user
provides to specify movements of the game objects." Appeal Br. 14--16.
Such inputs, in Appellants' view, direct game objects to move in a particular
fashion. Id. at 15. Appellants agree, however, that "the game objects
interact with other game objects according to the game design." Id.; Reply
Br. 8. The dispute appears to be whether an "object movement pattern" as
claimed may persist in the game and continue to influence the intended
game object and other game objects. In our view, the Specification more
reasonably supports the Examiner's broader view-that the claims read on
such a pattern.
The Specification states that "a game object can be moved in
accordance with a movement pattern" (Spec. i-f 5) but does not limit patterns
to operate in a particular manner. It further states that the invention "can be
applied by way of example without limitation to moving different game
objects using the same movement pattern." Id. i-f 6. As exemplary
movement patterns, the Specification lists "arrows ... to tell game objects
(e.g., characters) to move in the direction of the arrow," "x's ... to indicate a
4
Appeal2014-006758
Application 11/507 ,020
target to hit or a target destination to go to," and "lines ... to create a barrier
or border that an object cannot pass," among others. Id. i-f 44. In particular,
the example of a barrier line contradicts the notion that a movement pattern
does not behave as a game object once drawn by the user. From these
statements and examples, we understand the claimed "object movement
pattern" to denote a user's touchscreen input, displayed as the user draws the
pattern, that influences object movements in the game. See id. i-fi-1 44--59,
Figs. 8A-1 OF. Such patterns differ from a user pressing buttons on the
touchscreen. See id. i-f 23 (describing buttons on the touchscreen separately
from object movement patterns).
Appellants argue that Nishida's colored lines are not object movement
patterns because the game objects in Nishida move as a result of other
factors in addition to the colored lines. Appeal Br. 16-23. Although
Appellants identify several instances where Nishida's insects move
according to such other factors, that does not take away from the interactions
relied on by the Examiner-the insects move largely according to the
colored lines drawn by the user. See Nishida 7:34--37 ("[A]n insect which
likes one of [the] colors used in a line drawing on the canvas is
automatically displayed by the movable body drawing unit 106, and the
inse[c]t is moved along the line drawing."); 9:60-65 ("As a result of
checking [the colors surrounding an insect], one of the directions which is
found to have a largest number of liked colors is the turning direction.");
Final Act. 2-3 (citing Nishida Fig. 20, 8:4--7, 8:9-26, 10:3-5, 12:63---65);
Ans. 7 ("the liked colors are provided by the color of the drawn line").
Thus, we do not agree with Appellants that "[t]he line game objects in
5
Appeal2014-006758
Application 11/507 ,020
Nishida themselves do not specify the movement of the insect game
objects." See Appeal Br. 23.
Appellants attempt to recast their argument in various ways, but those
arguments grow from the same rootstock. For example, Appellants assert
that, because the insects in Nishida will fly away if facing three or more
disliked colors (or tum away when facing one or two such colors),
"Nishida's line cannot be the object movement pattern." Appeal Br. 26-27.
As explained above, we do not agree with Appellants that claim 16 requires
an object movement pattern provide such an absolute control over game-
object movement. Indeed, the Specification undermines such a requirement,
through the nonlimiting examples discussed above, and other explanations
that game objects move according to factors beyond their object movement
patterns. See Spec. i-f 54 ("[A] user may lead his/her army into the path of
his/her opponent and a melee battle will occur."), Figs. 9A, 9B (indicating
movement patterns in a football game where a user intends the game pieces
to move), i-fi-1 4 7--48 (describing movement patterns for sports plays, which a
user would not expect to precisely control a game object's movement).
Thus, even accepting Appellants' argument that "it is entirely possible, and
even likely, that the insect [in Nishida] will deviate from the drawn line
during the fly-in processing step" (Reply Br. 4) or during any other part of
the movement processing (id. at 5), that does not apprise us of error in the
rejection.
In a related argument, Appellants argue that the colored lines in
Nishida are not sufficiently selective regarding the insects in Nishida to
satisfy the requirement in claim 16 that one object movement pattern specify
the movement of one game object while another object movement pattern
6
Appeal2014-006758
Application 11/507 ,020
specify the movement of another game object. Appeal Br. 23-24; Reply
Br. 7. Because "more than one insect game object interacts with the same
line game object," according to Appellants, "[t]here is no selection." Appeal
Br. 24. We do not agree. As explained above, claim 16 contains no
requirement for a given object movement pattern to influence the movement
of only one game object. Because different-colored lines in Nishida cause
different insects to appear and follow their respective lines, the object
movement patterns in claim 16 read on Nishida.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 16. For
independent claims 18, 44, and 47, Appellants rely on the same arguments
made regarding claim 16. Appeal Br. 27. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 16, 18, 44, and 47.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Best in the rejection
of dependent claims 40-43, 46, and 49 does not correct the alleged
deficiencies with the rejection of claim 16. Appeal Br. 28. Because we do
not agree with those deficiencies, we likewise sustain the rejection of claims
40-43, 46, and 49.
Finally, Appellants do not argue for reversal of the rejections of
claims 50-57. Without a basis for reversal, and further because those
rejections also relied on Nishida in same manner as with claim 16, we
sustain the rejections of claims 50-57.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 16, 18, and
3 8-5 7 is affirmed.
7
Appeal2014-006758
Application 11/507 ,020
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
8