Ex Parte Mizuki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2013

10825180 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KIYOSHI MIZUKI and KENJI YAMAMOTO
____________________

Appeal 2011-004663
Application 10/825,180
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004663
Application 10/825,180
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Kiyoshi Mizuki and Kenji Yamamoto (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-10. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to “an image processing apparatus and a
storing medium that stores an image processing program that displays an
image in which an operating object appearing in a virtual three-dimensional
space is seen from a predetermined viewpoint location.” Spec. 1, ll. 10-12.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An image processing apparatus that displays on a display
an image in which an operating object appearing in a virtual
three-dimensional space is seen from a predetermined
viewpoint location, comprising:
an operation controller operated by a player;
selecting programmed logic circuitry for selecting the
operating object appearing in said virtual three-
dimensional space, out of a plurality of the operating objects
different in size, based on an operation of said operation
controller;
viewpoint-location setting programmed logic circuitry for
setting the viewpoint location in correspondence with said
operating object selected by said selecting programmed logic
circuitry; and
image displaying programmed logic circuitry for
displaying a three-dimensional image including said operating
object based on said viewpoint location set by said viewpoint-
location setting programmed logic circuitry,
wherein said viewpoint-location setting programmed
logic circuitry sets the viewpoint-locations in such a manner so
that each of operating objects selected by said selecting
Appeal 2011-004663
Application 10/825,180
3
programmed logic circuitry is displayed to have approximately
the same size, even if any one operating object is selected out of
said plurality of operating objects different in size.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Takahashi US 6,354,944 B1 Mar. 12, 2002

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Takahashi. Ans. 3.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Takahashi discloses all of the elements of
claims 1, 2, and 4-10. Ans. 3-5. In pertinent part, the Examiner finds that
Takahashi teaches the “wherein” clause of claim 1 via Takahashi’s
disclosure of generating “the optimum view from the avatar angle depending
on the size of the character selected for viewing.” Ans. 4 (citing Takahashi
col. 2, ll. 18-22 and col. 3, ll. 54-62). The Examiner goes on to explain that
“[b]y adjusting the distance to the back of the character to be larger when the
character is of large size and getting closer when the character is smaller,
will produce the effect of maintaining the character in view of the same size
in the viewing screen.” Ans. 4. In general, the Examiner’s point of view is
that Takahashi anticipates the claims via disclosure of the feature that “is the
commonly known avatar view in which the player views his character
(selected operating character), directly from behind the character in order to
Appeal 2011-004663
Application 10/825,180
4
see the character and the area in front of the character.” Ans. 6. The
Examiner goes on to state that “[t]his is the exact view depicted in the
present application as shown in figures 9, 10 and 11 of the present
application.” Id.
The Examiner, however, appears to miss a subtle, but important,
difference between Appellants’ figures and Takahashi’s avatar view. As
Appellants point out “[i]n Takahashi, each particular object is made to
appear as to have the same size regardless of its position in the virtual space,
by moving the virtual camera from the object.” App. Br. 11. In contrast,
figures 9-11 all show the same perspective view of the game environment
surrounding the character, but have resized the character so that each has the
same size. This is not the same as merely moving the camera closer to or
farther away from an object to see more or less of the game environment, as
is the case with the avatar view taught in Takahashi.
Appellants further elucidate this point as follows:
Takahashi does not teach that all of the different characters
regardless of their size (“even if any one operating object is
selected out of said plurality of operating objects different in
size”, as required by claim 1) are made to appear as having the
same size by appropriately changing the viewpoint location for
each object.
For example, Figs 8-11 of the instant specification show
exactly this feature. Fig. 8 shows three different objects having
different size before the viewpoint location for each one has
been adjusted according to the invention of claim 1. Object A is
seen as large, object B is seen as medium sized and object C is
seen as small (see the explicit recitation of “operating object
appearing in said virtual three-dimensional space, out of a
plurality objects different in size”, in claims 1 and 6). After the
process of the invention of claim 1 is performed, the view point
location for each of the objects A, B and C is set such that all
the objects appear to have the same size (see Fig. 9-showing
Appeal 2011-004663
Application 10/825,180
5
object A, Fig. 10-showing object B, and Fig. 11-showing object
C). As can be seen from Figs. 9-11, all objects appear to have
approximately the same size, even though before the
application of the claimed process they had different sizes (A >
B > C).
App. Br. 12.
Appellants further point out that
[i]t appears that the Examiner confuses the adjustment of a
particular game character so that it appears to have the same
size regardless of its position in the virtual space, taught in
Takahashi, with the adjustment of each of the game characters
so that all appear to have the same size, taught in the invention
of claim 1.
App. Br. 13. We agree with Appellants’ characterization of the differences
between Takahashi and the presently claimed invention.
Further, it is of no moment that, as the Examiner states, “the virtual
camera views are only presented one at a time on the video screen and that it
is impossible to show two or more camera views on a display without
splitting the screen” because claim 1, for example, is written in a way that
requires logic circuitry programmed for the variously claimed functions.1
Ans. 8. The circuitry, therefore, requires the ability to treat differently sized
objects in the manner recited in the claim regardless of the single image
displayed at any one time. As Appellants argue, and we agree, Takahashi
discloses that “the operating character has approximately the same size in
the window of the screen,” but “this is not done for all operating characters,
so that the relative size of all the operating characters is the same.” Reply
Br. 3. In further response, Appellants correctly note that Takahashi “says to

1 Claim 6 likewise recites a set of executable steps provided on a storage
medium that requires the capability of “even if any one operating object is
selected out of said plurality of operating objects different in size.”
Appeal 2011-004663
Application 10/825,180
6
adjust the position of the virtual camera so that all of the characters can be
seen at the same time does not say that all of the characters have the same
size.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis removed).
As such, we agree with Appellants that Takahashi does not teach the
“wherein” clause of claim 1 and thus we do not sustain the rejection of claim
1, or its dependent claims 2, 4, and 5, as anticipated by Takahashi. Claim 6
likewise includes language similar to claim 1 of “even if any one operating
object is selected out of said plurality of operating objects different in size”
and we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-10 as
anticipated by Takahashi.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1, 2, and 4-10.

REVERSED

mls