Ex Parte YAMADA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

13084883 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/084,883 04/12/2011
27562 7590 12/26/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hiroyuki YAMADA
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.
AC-723-3060 1981
EXAMINER
BENNETT, STUART D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROYUKI YAMADA and DAVID BROSKE 1
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883 2
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is Nintendo Co.,
Ltd. App. Br. 3.
2 The Application on appeal was filed on April 12, 2011, with an earliest
effective filing date of December 28, 2010. Therefore, the pre-Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act ("AIA") §§ 102 and 103 of the U.S. Code are
applicable. See MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE ("MPEP")
§ 2159.02 ("AIA 35 U.S.C. [§§] 102 and 103 apply to any patent application
that contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed invention that has
an effective filing date that is on or after March 16, 2013.").
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 8-18, 20, and 21. Final
Act. 3-18; App. Br. 1. 3 Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 19 have been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appellants 'Invention
The invention generally relates to a game apparatus for executing a
game program and displaying on a screen an image generated by a virtual
camera set in a virtual space. Spec. ,r 29. In particular, the displayed image
is a stereoscopically visible image comprised of separate left and right
images taken from separate views associated with left and right virtual
cameras, where an adjustable distance between the left and right virtual
cameras determines the sense of perspective of virtual objects in the virtual
space. See Spec. ,r,r 78-80. The game apparatus can change the viewpoint
of a user of the game between a first-person viewpoint and a third-person
viewpoint based on the position of a reference point for the virtual cameras,
such that the first-person viewpoint is based on a reference point associated
with a player object controlled by the user, and the third-person viewpoint is
based on a reference point other than that associated with the player object.
See Spec. ,r,r 75, 89. When progressing through the game program, the game
3 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed April 12, 2011;
Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed November 15, 2017; and Reply Br. ("Reply
Br.") filed April 27, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") dated April 17, 2017, and Answer ("Ans.") dated
March 7, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883
apparatus can take a screenshot of a stereoscopic image based on a user
operation that causes the game apparatus to switch from the third-person to
the first-person viewpoint and take and store the screenshot. See Spec.
,r,r 91-92, 105-113.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
1. An image processing apparatus comprising:
a processing system that includes at least one processor
coupled to a memory device, the processing system configured
to:
receive an input provided by a user to the image
processing apparatus;
locate a virtual object within a virtual space;
locate, for a third-person viewpoint of the virtual object,
a left virtual camera and a right virtual camera such that the left
virtual camera and the right virtual camera are spaced apart
from each other within a virtual space by an interval set in
accordance with the received input;
in the third-person viewpoint, control the virtual object to
change position and/or direction within the virtual space based
on accepted input provided by the user while also maintaining
the third-person viewpoint of the virtual object with the left
virtual camera and the right virtual camera;
while the left virtual camera and the right virtual camera
are maintained in the third-person viewpoint, sequentially
output, to a display device, stereoscopic viewing images with a
disparity that is set in accordance with the received input, each
of the stereoscopic viewing images being generated on the basis
of an image for a left eye obtained by taking an image of the
virtual space with the located left virtual camera in the third-
person viewpoint and an image for a right eye obtained by
3
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883
taking an image of the virtual space with the located right
virtual camera in the third-person viewpoint;
in response to a single user operation provided by the
user to the image processing apparatus 1) adjust the position
and/ or orientation of the left virtual camera and the right virtual
camera from the third-person viewpoint to a first-person
viewpoint with respect to the controlled virtual object, and 2)
store, to the memory device, at least one first-person
stereoscopic viewing image generated using the first-person
viewpoint at the disparity that is set in accordance with the
received input;
return, from the first-person viewpoint with respect to the
controlled virtual object, the left virtual camera and the right
virtual camera to the third-person viewpoint without additional
user input after completion of the single user operation and the
adjustment of the position and/or orientation of the left virtual
camera and the right virtual camera from the third-person
viewpoint to the first-person viewpoint;
load, from the memory device, the at least one first-
person stereoscopic viewing image generated using the first-
person viewpoint that was previously stored to the memory
device with a corresponding disparity; and
reproduce and output to a display device, irrespective of
current input for adjusting the disparity of the sequentially
output stereoscopic viewing images, the at least one first-person
stereoscopic viewing image,
wherein a viewpoint to view the virtual space is set to the
first-person viewpoint for generation of the at least one first-
person stereoscopic viewing image for the virtual object and the
viewpoint is otherwise set to the third-person viewpoint for a
normal time of control of the virtual object.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 12, 14--18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under
4
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US
2011/0018868 Al; pub. Jan. 27, 2011) ("Inoue"), XBOX, Fatal Frame II:
Crimson Butteifly, Director's Cut (released for Xbox on Nov. 1, 2004)
("Tecmo"), Kiser et al. (US 2001/0035859 Al; pub. Nov. 1, 2001) ("Kiser"),
and How to take in-game 3D stereo screens hots in JPS format, 3D VISION
BLOG (June 20, 2009), https://3dvision-blog.com/83-how-to-take-in-game-
3 d-stereo-screenshots-in-jps-format/ ("Belev").
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Inoue, Tecmo, Kiser, Belev, and Dyke-Wells (US
7,585,224; issued Sept. 8, 2009).
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Inoue, Tecmo, Kiser, Belev, and Zitnick, III et al. (US
2010/0318914 Al; pub. Dec. 16, 2010) ("Zitnick").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's obviousness rejections in light of
Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the
Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' contentions. Except as
noted below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner regarding the obviousness rejections in the Final Office Action
and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We
concur with the Examiner's conclusions regarding the obviousness
rejections, and we highlight the following additional points.
5
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8-16
Appellants argue the Examiner fails to provide more than a
conclusory rationale for explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine the relied upon references,
particularly Tecmo and Kiser, for meeting the claim 1 limitation "in
response to a single user operation ... 1) adjust the position and/or
orientation of the left virtual camera and the right virtual camera from the
third-person viewpoint to a first-person viewpoint ... and 2) store, to the
memory device, at least one first-person stereoscopic viewing image .... "
See App. Br. 16-18.
We disagree with Appellants because the Examiner explains "[ o ]ne
would have been motivated to modify Inoue and Tecmo's joint invention, by
incorporating Kiser's invention, to allow the creation of user-defined actions
([0026]), for assisting in automating repetitive sequences ([0032]) .... "
Final Act. 9. This rationale is not merely conclusory, but is drawn from the
teachings of Kiser. That is, Kiser teaches defining a macro for use in a
computer game, where a macro is a list of actions to perform when a
particular event occurs, and notes "[ t ]his is useful for automating repetitive
sequences." Kiser ,r 32. The Examiner properly applies Kiser's teachings to
the combination of Inoue and Tecmo by noting that the game described in
Tecmo involves a repetitive sequence, specifically, switching to a first-
person viewfinder mode and taking a picture:
That is, a player must go to Viewfinder mode to take a picture
in order to advance through the game as intended. And because
the Viewfinder Mode is a main feature of the game, a user will
be expected to take a vast amount of pictures throughout the
game in a repetitive fashion. Because it is a repetitive activity
6
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883
that a player must perform, it is a macro that one would have
been highly inclined to create to arrive at the claimed invention.
Ans. 20; see also Tecmo 10-11 ("Advance through the game, changing
between Field Mode and Viewfinder Mode as circumstances dictate ....
Look through the camera and take pictures of the ghosts and scenery.").
Appellants argue the Examiner fails to provide a reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references, particularly
Tecmo and Kiser, so as to "return, from the first-person viewpoint with
respect to the controlled virtual object, the left virtual camera and the right
virtual camera to the third-person viewpoint without additional user input
after completion of the single user operation," as recited in claim 1. See
App. Br. 18-20.
We agree with the Examiner that the same rationale discussed above
applies with respect to the claim 1 feature of returning from the first-person
viewpoint to the third-person viewpoint "without additional user input after
completion of the single user operation." See Ans. 21-22. Specifically, as
the Examiner states,
the [T ecmo] game is designed in such a way that a user must
switch between these two viewpoints to advance through the
game. In realizing this, one of ordinary skill in the art that has
created a macro for switching a viewpoint and then taking a
picture ... would be motivated to return to the first [third-
person] viewpoint to continue their progress in the game.
Ans. 22.
Appellants argue that, given the thousands of possible combinations
for how Tecmo could be automated, there would have been no reasonable
7
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883
expectation of success of the Examiner's combination. App. Br. 20. We
disagree with Appellants.
While there may be modifications to Tecmo that would be non-
obvious, we are concerned here with the very specific modification proposed
by the Examiner. Namely, the Examiner proposes modifying Tecmo, in
view of Kiser, such that a user could, through the use of a single operation,
perform a macro that includes switching from field mode to viewfinder
mode, taking a picture, and returning to field mode. See Final Act. 6-9;
Ans. 20, 22. This macro would be assigned to a button on Tecmo's
controller. See Ans. 25. We disagree with Appellants that there would not
have been a reasonable expectation of success of the Examiner's
modification to Tecmo. It is well known in the art that video games are
made to operate on different systems, and that game functionality must be
mapped to the specific controllers of the different systems. Appellants' have
not persuasively shown that mapping a sequence of functions, i.e., a macro,
to a button on Tecmo's controller would be any more difficult than standard
function-controller mapping in the video game art. See Leapfrog
Enterprises, Inc., v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)) ("Leapfrog
presents no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in this type of device was
uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.").
Appellants argue the Examiner's combination of Kiser with Tecmo
would have destroyed Tecmo by removing options available to the user in
viewfinder mode. App. Br. 20-21. We disagree with Appellants.
8
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883
As the Examiner explains:
Adding a macro does not remove the functionality otherwise
available to the controller. Macros are generally bound to
additional buttons (i.e., white or black button on the Xbox
controller in pp. 4--5 of Tecmo) and complement existing,
available buttons. That is, all the original buttons as intended
are still present, only that there are now additional buttons with
controls that a user may optionally use to enhance their
experience at any time they desire.
Ans. 25. Moreover, Tecmo specifically describes using alternate button
configurations according to user preference. See Tecmo 17 ("Control
Options: Change the controller set up .... Button Configuration- Select
the configuration of buttons."). Accordingly, one would have been able to
modify Tecmo by adding the Examiner's proposed macro functionality
without foreclosing other options from the user, and without departing from
the manner in which T ecmo is intended to be operated.
Appellants argue the Examiner's combination does not teach "wherein
a viewpoint to view the virtual space is set to the first-person viewpoint for
generation of the at least one first-person stereoscopic viewing image for the
virtual object and the viewpoint is otherwise set to the third-person
viewpoint for a normal time of control of the virtual object," as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 21-23.
We disagree with Appellants' argument because Tecmo teaches
switching between a third-person view and a first-person view-i.e.,
Tecmo's field mode and viewfinder mode-where a virtual object-i.e.,
Tecmo's main character, "Mio"-is controlled in the third-person view for
exploring the video game when not taking a picture in the first-person view.
See Ans. 22, 26; Tecmo 10-11.
9
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883
Finally, Appellants argue Belev does not teach storing the disparity of
a stereoscopic screenshot. App. Br. 23-24. We disagree with Appellants.
Belev describes taking screenshots while playing a 3D video game.
Belev 1. Specifically, Belev provides that "if you press ALT+ Fl instead
while in the game you can save a JPS screenshot that actually contains 2
images - one for the left eye and one for the right, thus allowing you to see
the image in 3D Stereo mode with a compatible viewer." Belev 1 (emphasis
omitted). Further, Belev provides that
[y Jou should have in mind that when viewing the 3D stereo
images you cannot change their level of depth like you can in a
normal 3D application ... when making the screenshots they
are being saved in the depth level you were using in the actual
game or other 3D application.
Belev 2. Here, we find Belev's description of saving 3D images such that
"you cannot change their level of depth" suggests "stor[ing], to the memory
device, at least one first-person stereoscopic viewing image ... at the
disparity that is set in accordance with the received input," as recited in
claim 1.
As one skilled in the art would know, the disparity between the
viewpoints of left- and right-eye images is what controls the perception of
depth in a 3D image. For example, Inoue describes that "the level of
stereopsis increases if the camera-to-camera distance is increased and, on the
contrary, the level of stereopsis decreases if the camera-to-camera distance is
decreased." Inoue ,r 136. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that by storing 3D images such that the level of depth cannot be
changed, Belev suggests preserving the disparity between the viewpoints of
left- and right-eye images, i.e., "stor[ing] ... [the] stereoscopic viewing
10
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883
image ... at the disparity that is set in accordance with the received input,"
as in claim 1.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2, 5, and 8-16, not specifically argued separately.
Claims 17 and 20
Appellants argue Kiser fails to teach "wherein the single user
operation comprises an actuation of the input device and, after the actuation,
a release of the input device by the user," as recited in claim 17, because
Kiser does not describe combining a touch and untouch event for triggering
a macro, but rather only describes triggering a macro via a touch or untouch
event. App. Br. 24--25.
Kiser defines a macro as "a list of actions to perform when a touch or
untouch event is received from the game controller," where "[ e Jach event
can have its own list of actions to perform" and "[ s ]everal actions can be
performed using a macro." Kiser ,r 32. As the Examiner notes, there can be
no untouch event without a touch event. Ans. 29. Accordingly, in the
Examiner's combination of Kiser with Inoue and Tecmo, a macro is
completed upon an untouch event, which has been preceded by a touch
event, thus, meeting the claim 17 limitation that a "single user operation
comprises an actuation of the input device and, after the actuation, a release
of the input device."
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
17, and similar claim 20.
11
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883
Claims 18 and 21
Appellants argue the Examiner "fails to address why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to bind the press of a
button ( or a touch event) to switching viewpoints and also bind the release
of that button (or an untouch event) to taking a screenshot." App. Br. 26.
We disagree with Appellants that the Examiner fails to provide a
motivation to combine Kiser with Inoue and Tecmo to meet the limitations
of claim 18. See App. Br. 26. As discussed above, the Examiner supplies a
proper motivation for combining Kiser with Inoue and Tecmo----namely "for
assisting in automating repetitive sequences." Final Act. 9. The assignment
of particular functions in the Examiner's proposed macro to touch and
untouch events in such a way as to meet the limitations of claim 18 is merely
an obvious variation of the Inoue, Tecmo, and Kiser combination.
To wit, Kiser describes assigning actions associated with a macro to
either a touch event or untouch event. Kiser ,r 32; Fig. 8. We find it would
have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to pick and choose
different combinations of assignments of the functions in the Examiner's
proposed macro to touch and untouch events of a button on Tecmo's
controller, including a combination that assigns switching from third-person
to first-person viewpoints to a touch event, and that assigns taking a
screenshot to an untouch event. As the Examiner notes, the proposed macro
includes only three sequential functions ( switch viewpoints, take picture,
return to original viewpoint), which leaves only four obvious combinations
for assigning functions to touch and untouch events, each with a reasonable
expectation of success. See Ans. 30-31.
12
Appeal2018-005333
Application 13/084,883
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
18, and similar claim 21.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
2, 5, 8-18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 8-18, 20,
and 21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
13