Ex Parte Kaneko

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 5, 2013

11167222 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TAKAFUMI KANEKO
____________

Appeal 2011-004570
Application 11/167,222
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BARRY L. GROSSMAN Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004570
Application 11/167,222

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23 and 25-29. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, directed to a video game device; claim 13, directed to a
storage medium storing an image processing program; and claim 25,
directed to a storage medium storing a game program, are independent
claims. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal,
and is reproduced below:
1. A video game device, comprising:
at least one controller operated by a user;
object storing locations for storing a position of each of a
plurality of objects including at least one first object present in
a 3D virtual game space;
mask data producing programmed logic circuitry for
producing mask data according to a position of the first object
in the virtual game space;
mask data storing locations for storing the mask data
produced by the mask data producing programmed logic
circuitry;
projection programmed logic circuitry for projecting each
object present in the virtual game space onto a screen plane
based on a viewpoint defined in the virtual game . space;
game image producing programmed logic circuitry for
rendering each object based on a result of the projection by the
projection programmed logic circuitry to produce a game
image; and
display control programmed logic circuitry for displaying
the game image produced by the game image producing
programmed logic circuitry on a display device, wherein:
Appeal 2011-004570
Application 11/167,222

3
the mask data producing programmed logic circuitry
produces mask data such that a portion of each object, which
portion is in a predetermined masked area centered around a
position of the first object in a screen of the display device, is
made transparent while a remaining portion of said each object,
which remaining portion is outside the masked area, is
displayed normally; and
the game image producing programmed logic circuitry
does not perform a masking process when rendering the first
object and performs the masking process using the mask data
only when rendering a second object other than the first object
present in the virtual game space, wherein the mask data
producing programmed logic circuitry produces mask data such
that each object is made transparent in a predetermined masked
area including a position of the first object in a screen of the
display device while each object is displayed normally in a
remaining area, with a transparency of each object being
gradually varied around a boundary of the masked area, and
wherein
the transparency of each object takes multiple different
values from the center of the first object to the boundary of the
masked area.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art references:

Mita US 5,060,280 Oct. 22, 1991
Cohen US 6,040,841 Mar. 21, 2000

Appeal 2011-004570
Application 11/167,222

4
Chris Foley, Nuclear Apocalypse is just as cool the second time around
(Nov. 3, 1998) (http://www.gamerswanted.com/pc/280/reviews/76/) (last
accessed May 26, 2009) (hereinafter “Foley”).

REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-9, 13-21 and 25-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Foley and Cohen; and
2. Claims 11 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Foley, Cohen, and Mita.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner, in relevant part to the issues raised by Appellant,
found that Foley discloses a transparency for a masked image that is
“gradually varied around a boundary of the masked area” and wherein the
transparency has “multiple different values,” as called for in the claims.
Ans. 6-7. The Examiner acknowledges that Figure 2 of Foley shows that the
entire center of the circular bubble surrounding the player character has the
same transparency, e.g., 100%. Ans. 13. However, in the Examiner’s
interpretation of Figure 2, the area approaching the edge/outer portion of the
bubble shows blending effects to the surrounding environment which means
the transparency level is not 100%. Id.
The Examiner’s interpretation of the Foley reference is based solely
on Figure 2 of Foley. The written material in the Foley reference does not
mention a gradually varied transparency or multiple different values of
transparency. Page 3 of the Foley written material, to which the Examiner
also refers (Ans. 6) states only that there is a “transparent bubble effect”
Appeal 2011-004570
Application 11/167,222

5
without stating any details of whether the transparency is varied and includes
multiple different values, as called for in the claims.
Appellant has a different interpretation of what is shown on the
edge/outer portion of Figure 2. Appellant asserts that what is shown in the
periphery of the circular area around the character inside the house are parts
of the roof. Reply Br. 2-3. More specifically, Appellant asserts that “[t]he
view then through the bubble is such that the circumference of the
transparent area is not perfectly circular, but it is broken into several small
non-transparent pieces.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis removed).
Appellant argues that the applied references fail to disclose or suggest
a display of objects with a transparency of each object being gradually
varied around a boundary of the masked area, and wherein the transparency
of each object takes multiple different values from the center of the first
object to the boundary of the masked area, as called for in the independent
claims. E.g., App. Br. 15. In support of their position, Appellant asserts
that:
(1) Figure 2 of Foley, on which the Examiner specifically relies,
shows the entire interior of the circular bubble surrounding the player
character having the same, uniform transparency (App. Br. 16);
(2) Figure 2 of Foley does not disclose “blending” at the edges of the
bubble (id.); and
(3) the Examiner’s interpretation of the Foley disclosure is based on
unsupported speculation, is not inherent in the Foley disclosure, and is not
supported by the Foley reference (id. at 17-18).
Thus, the issue presented is simply what is shown in Figure 2 of
Foley?
Appeal 2011-004570
Application 11/167,222

6
A drawing or illustration “can be cited against the claims of a utility
patent application even though the feature shown in the drawing was
unintended or unexplained.” In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA
1979). However, like all references, a drawing or illustration is evaluated
and applied on the basis of what it reasonably discloses and suggests to a
person having ordinary skill in the relevant technology. In re Baum, 374
F.2d 1004, 1009 (CCPA 1967). An Examiner’s factual finding regarding
what any reference discloses must be supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(“preponderance of the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO
in making rejections”). A preponderance of the evidence is evidence that is
more convincing than the opposing evidence. See, C. McCormick,
McCormick on Evidence § 339 (2d ed. 1972) ("[E]vidence preponderates
when it is more convincing to the trier than the opposing evidence."
McCormick, supra, at 793). Here, the only evidence is Figure 2 of Foley.
In reviewing the disclosure in Figure 2 of Foley, we agree with
Appellant. The preponderance of the Figure 2 evidence does not support the
Examiner’s finding that Figure 2 discloses or suggests to a person having
ordinary skill in the relevant technology a display of objects with a
transparency of each object being varied around a boundary of the masked
area, and wherein the transparency of each object takes multiple different
values from the center of the object to the boundary of the masked area, as
called for in the independent claims. Figure 2 appears to have a uniform
transparency with a somewhat ragged edge defined by non-transparent
elements, as asserted by Appellant. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Appeal 2011-004570
Application 11/167,222

7
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 13-21 and 25-29 as unpatentable over
Foley and Cohen.
Regarding claims 11 and 23, dependent upon claims 1 and 13,
respectively, Mita does not cure the deficiency noted above with respect to
the Foley reference and as such we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s
decision to reject these claims as unpatentable over Foley, Cohen, and Mita.

DECISION
Upon consideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the preponderance of relevant evidence, we reverse the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23 and 25-29.

REVERSED

hh