Ex Parte SAOTOMEDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 19, 201813945292 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/945,292 07/18/2013 7055 7590 07/23/2018 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. 1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE RESTON, VA 20191 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hiroaki SAOTOME 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. P44263 6592 EXAMINER LE,SARAH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/23/2018 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): gbpatent@gbpatent.com greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIROAKI SAOTOME Appeal 2018-001021 1 Application 13/945,292 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 "The real party in interest is KABUSHIKI KAISHA SQUARE ENIX (ALSO TRADING AS SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.)." App. Br. 4. Appeal2018-001021 Application 13/945,292 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to "provid[ing] a character display device that can display a character with vigorousness and reality, without changing the pose of a character, by moving the character as if the character breathes." Spec. ,r 9. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphases added): 1. A character display device which displays a character of an arbitrary pose on a display screen, comprising: a memory that stores basic behavior information for controlling a behavior of a virtual skeleton of a character in a basic pose of the character; a processor that controls a behavior of the virtual skeleton of the character in an arbitrary pose based on the basic behavior information stored in the memory; and a display that displays the character by modeling the character based on the virtual skeleton controlled by the processor, wherein the arbitrary pose includes any pose of the character other than the basic pose, the basic behavior information controls the character to move in the basic pose without moving the character on a field map, the basic behavior information comprises an angular change degree from a reference angle in the basic pose, the angular change degree being variably controlled in accordance with a game progression state, and the basic behavior information controls the character by repeatedly changing a joint of the character in accordance with the angular change degree. App. Br. 30 (Claims Appendix). 2 Appeal2018-001021 Application 13/945,292 References and Rejections The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Takahashi US 2003/0003977 Al Jan.2,2003 Naganand Madhavapeddy and Stuart Ferguson, Specialised constraints for an inverse kinematics animation system applied to articulated figures Vol. 98 PROCEEDINGS OF EUROGRAPHICS (1998). ("Madhavapeddy") Scarecrow, TF2 Models Tutorials-Animating in Milkshape 3d (1), posted Feb 1, 2001, hosted by Planetfortress https://www.quaddicted.com/webarchive/www.planetfortress.com/tf2mod els/tuto/ms3d sc/tuto ms3d sc6a.htm ("Scarecrow") Microsoft, Agent State, Microsoft, posted January 8, 2011, https://msdn.microsoft.com/enus/ library/ms695804(v=vs.85).aspx, ("Microsoft") Malek, [3DSmax] Animation and Exportation, posted August 04, 2011, http://zeg2.com/lite/forums/viewtopic. php ?t=463 2, ("Malek") Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in view of Malek and Scarecrow. Final Act. 4--5. Claims 3 and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in view of Malek, Scarecrow, and Madhavapeddy. Final Act. 19-20. Claims 4, 8, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in view of Malek, Scarecrow, and Microsoft. Final Act. 27-28. Claims 7, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in view of Malek, Scarecrow, and Takahashi. Final Act. 31. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments. We are not persuaded of Examiner error; we adopt the 3 Appeal2018-001021 Application 13/945,292 Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2-15; Ans. 2-15) as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Any arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to raise in the Briefs are deemed waived. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections"). A. Independent Claim 1 i. An Arbitrary Pose Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is in error, because "neither MALEK nor SCARECROW controls a character in an arbitrary pose based on basic behavior information for controlling the character in a basic pose, with the arbitrary pose being any pose other than the basic pose." App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellant contends "the Examiner's position ignores and misconstrues the terms arbitrary and any," as "the arbitrary pose is submitted to refer to each pose that can be taken by the character, and not to a single, predetermined pose." Reply Br. 7. In contrast, Appellant contends Malek "is limited to the custom animation being added to the standard pose that is specifically selected by the programmer, such that the custom animation may be incorporated in sequence between the selected standard pose and another specific pose," and "such custom animation is not arbitrary, and would not encompass any pose that can be taken by the character." Reply Br. 8. We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. During prosecution, we give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. 4 Appeal2018-001021 Application 13/945,292 In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is ... an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is 'consistent with the specification.'" In re Smith Int 'l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ( citations omitted). Consistent with the specification, we agree with the Examiner that "claim [1] does not specify when or who selects [the arbitrary pose] and 'any pose of the character' can be [a] single pose. Second, the claim does not exclude custom animation. The arbitrary pose could be determined in advance." Ans. 3. Appellant's Specification defines an arbitrary pose as "different from the basic pose, and may be any pose that can be taken by the character." Spec. ,r 11 2. Thus we agree with the Examiner that the limitation-"an arbitrary pose" which "includes any pose of the character" ( emphases added}--refers to any single pose of the character. See Ans. 8. Further, Appellant provides a definition of arbitrary which includes "random" (Reply Br. 7); however, another definition of the term is "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something" (Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary, last accessed June 28, 2018). Malek, similarly, teaches "now you can edit any frame and it will 2 We note the Specification refers to "arbitrary pose" only through the Summary of the Invention, and refers to "target pose" in the Detailed Description. Compare Spec. ,r 11, with Spec. ,r 36. 5 Appeal2018-001021 Application 13/945,292 be saved like you set it, offering you thousands but millions of patterns to express your creativity!" Malek page 2. Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the claimed arbitrary pose is taught or suggested by Malek's description of determining a character pose. See Ans. 3, 8-9; Malek page 2 ("you will select the pose that follows the standing one"). ii. An Angular Change Degree Appellant argues "independent claim 1 explicitly recites that an angular change degree of the basic behavior information is variably controlled in accordance with a game progression state," and "the Final Office Action and the Advisory Action do not afford appropriate consideration of such a variable angular change degree, and ... neither MALEK nor SCARECROW disclose such a feature." App. Br. 14. Particularly, Appellant contends "MALEK solely discloses different chest rotations/positions which are defined in advance by the programmer, albeit on a frame-by-frame basis" and "SCARECROW solely discloses that joint positions are set on a frame-by-frame basis." Reply Br. 9, 10. Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding the disputed limitations are reasonably taught by the combination of Malek and Scarecrow's "frame by frame" angle changes. Ans. 10-11; Malek page 2; Scarecrow page 4. We also agree with the Examiner that Malek's "idle animation[,] when it is triggered in-game[,] is considered changing game procession state between idle state and not idle state." Advisory Act. 2; see also Malek page 2 ("[M]ake sure you know what is each animation (when it 6 Appeal2018-001021 Application 13/945,292 triggers)," and "[t]his is an example of the first standing pose of the death on-ground animation."). Appellant's Specification, although not including the phrase variably controlled, describes that "the difference information read from the joint management table 50 in step 811 may be prepared in plurality, and may be changed according to conditions such as the game progression state, the weather and temperature in a virtual world, and the status of the player character." Spec. ,r 48. 3 Malek, as found by the Examiner, similarly teaches that "Goku has to uncross his hands first before shooting kames! also, the idle animation is a looping one, means that all it[] s frames repeat when it is triggered in-game, but for example the lock-on animation, only the three last frames repeat." Advisory Act. 2 ( quoting Malek page 3) ( emphasis added). Scarecrow also teaches or suggests creating angular changes according to the game progression state, within the meaning of the claim. See, e.g., Scarecow page 3 ("a weaponless idle animation"), page 4; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 11. Thus, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the claimed angular change degree is suggested by the combination of Malek and Scarecrow. See Final Act. 11; see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) (internal citations omitted) (The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. 3 We note that, unlike the other listed conditions, paragraph 48 of the Specification does not provide examples of a game progression state. 7 Appeal2018-001021 Application 13/945,292 B. Dependent Claims 14, 18, 20 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in relying on Scarecrow for teaching the limitations of dependent claim 14, which recites "the basic behavior information further comprises a necessary frame number for moving the joint of the character in the basic pose in accordance with a maximum angular change degree." App. Br. 24. Appellant asserts that "SCARECROW merely discloses that all joints must be in a certain position in a final frame. SCARECROW does not, however, include any disclosure relating to a necessary frame number." App. Br. 24--25. We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the necessary frame number to be taught or suggested by the combined references. See Ans. 17-19. Scarecrow discloses "[f]rames are the segments which an animation is divided into," such as 24 frames per second for animation, and "[a]t the moment, we are making an 'idle' animation for a player model so we will use 30 frames." Scarecrow page 2. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's citation to Madavapeddy, which teaches "[w]e must also specify angular limits about each of the axes." Madavapeddy section 3.2; Final Act. 25. Thus, Appellant does not show the combined teachings of the references are reasonably distinguishable from the claimed necessary frame number. See Final Act. 23-25; see also Spec. ,r 3 7 ("the number of frames necessary for the change (hereinafter, referred as the necessary frame number)"). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 14, and dependent claims 18 and 20 which are not separately argued. See App. Br. 24. 8 Appeal2018-001021 Application 13/945,292 C. Dependent Claim 4, 8, 10, and 12 Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 4 is in error, because "MICROSOFT is related to an animation service which plays certain animations corresponding to certain states," whereas "MALEK appears to disclose that the arms-crossed pose is specifically edited by the programmer for the animation pose." App. Br. 25-26. Appellant contends that, "in view of MALEK relating to 'custom' animations, it is submitted that MALEK teachings against merely applying the different animations of MICROSOFT for the animation pose." App. Br. 26. We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. The Examiner finds Malek does not discourage the solution claimed: Although, MALEK relating to "custom" animation, but it is not against applying the different animation of MICROSOFT for the animation pose since applying the different animation of MICROSOFT into MALEK to automatically play certain animations and it can provide more improvement for certain animation of MALEK's for example animated blink, visible breath. Ans. 22. We agree; Malek teaches working with "character[ s] that are already animated" and using "bipedal default animations." Malek page 1 ( emphasis omitted). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 4, and dependent claims 8, 10, and 12, for which Appellant presents similar arguments. See App. Br. 27. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 20. Appellant advances no further 9 Appeal2018-001021 Application 13/945,292 substantive argument on the remaining claims. See App. Br. 22-25, 28. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims for the same reasons discussed above. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation