Ex Parte Yamane

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

14620592 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/620,592 02/12/2015
27562 7590 03/29/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tomoyoshi YAMANE
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.
RYM-723-4119 8321
EXAMINER
WU,YANNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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 TOMOYOSHI YAMANE
Appeal2017-010944
Application 14/620,592 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 and 3-24. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant's Brief ("App. Br.") identifies NINTENDO CO., LTD. as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010944
Application 14/620,592
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an information processing device that is
location aware. Spec. i-fi-1 6-7. The device determines whether it is located
in a specific location. Once it determines the device is in a particular area,
access to specific data can be allowed or prohibited based on whether
additional conditions are met. Id. When the device leaves that area, any
previously granted access to the data is revoked. Spec. i18. Claims 1 and
10, reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics, are illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. An information processing apparatus capable of
communicating with another apparatus, the information
processing apparatus comprising one or more processors
configured to:
determine whether or not the information processmg
apparatus is located at a particular place;
if it is determined in the determination of the location that
the information processing apparatus is located at the particular
place, permit use of predetermined data;
if the information processing apparatus satisfies a
predetermined condition related to the fact that the information
processing apparatus is located at the particular place, prohibit
the permitted use of the data; and
if it is determined in the determination of the location that
the information processing apparatus has moved away from the
particular place, the use of the data is prohibited in the
prohibition.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
10. An information processing apparatus capable of
communicating with another apparatus, the information
processing apparatus compnsmg one or more processors
configured to:
2
Appeal2017-010944
Application 14/620,592
determine whether or not the information processmg
apparatus is located at a particular place;
if it is determined in the determination of the location that
the information processing apparatus is located at the particular
place, change a parameter used when predetermined processing
is performed; and
if the information processing apparatus has moved away
from the particular place, change back the changed parameter to
an original state.
App. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Takayama et al.
Miyamoto et al.
Yamazaki et al.
Kusano et al.
US 2007/0168860 Al
US 7,762891 B2
US 2011/0307892 Al
US 2014/0364194 Al
REJECTIONS
July 19, 2007
July 27, 2010
Dec. 15, 2011
Dec. 11, 2014
Claims 1, 3, and 5-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as
being anticipated by Yamazaki. Final Act. 6-22.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yamazaki and Takayama. Final Act. 22-23.
Claims 17, 19, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yamazaki and Kusano. Final Act. 23-24.
Claims 18, 20, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yamazaki and Miyamato. Final Act. 24--26.
3
Appeal2017-010944
Application 14/620,592
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Yamazaki discloses "if
it is determined in the determination of the location that the information
processing apparatus has moved away from the particular place, the use of
the data is prohibited in the prohibition," as recited in independent claims 1,
11, 13, and 15?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Yamazaki discloses
"if the information processing apparatus has moved away from the particular
place, change back the changed parameter to an original state," as recited in
independent claims 10, 12, 14, and 16?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
In rejecting independent claims 1, 11, 13, and 15, the Examiner finds
the limitation "if it is determined in the determination of the location that the
information processing apparatus has moved away from the particular place,
the use of the data is prohibited in the prohibition," is disclosed by
Yamazaki' s description of a game apparatus that receives updated policy
data when it moves from one store to another. Final Act. 9 (citing Yamazaki
i-f 168). More specifically, the Examiner finds Yamazaki discloses that when
game apparatus 1 is located in store A, it receives policy data A.
Subsequently, when the game apparatus leave store A and moves to store B,
access to policy data A is no longer used, and policy data B is operative on
the gaming apparatus. Id. The Examiner explains that by detecting beacon
information from store B, Yamazaki' s game apparatus determines that it is
no longer in store A and access to policy A is denied. Ans. 9--10.
4
Appeal2017-010944
Application 14/620,592
Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because "[i]n Yamazaki, the
use of policy data of store A is not prohibited merely by an apparatus
moving away from store A." App. Br. 12. Appellant argues this prohibition
only occurs after a new policy is received from store B. App. Br. 12 Thus,
according to Appellant, "[i]n Yamazaki, the use of policy data of the store A
is not prohibited merely by an apparatus moving away from the store A."
Id. (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Appellant
acknowledges that Yamazaki discloses prohibiting the use of policy A data
once policy B data has been received. App. Br. 12 ("Instead, Yamazaki
disclose that if new policy data is acquired at another store B, the policy
data of the store A cannot be used."). Appellant argues this disclosure is not
encompassed by the scope of the claim because tasks associated with
policy A can still be executed with lower priority. App. Br. 12. This
argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The limitation at
issue recites "if it is determined in the determination of the location that the
information processing apparatus has moved away from the particular place,
the use of the data is prohibited in the prohibition." App. Br. 16 (Claims
Appendix). Appellant's argument assumes the prohibited use of data must
be in direct response to movement to another location. However, the recited
language is broader than that because it does not indicate that the prohibition
is necessarily in response to or based on a determination of a change of
location. Rather, the language recites two distinct events-a determination
that the location of the apparatus has changed, and a prohibition of the use of
the data that occurs after the change in location. We agree with the
Examiner that Yamazaki discloses this configuration. Yamazaki discloses
5
Appeal2017-010944
Application 14/620,592
that a user is located in store A and operates under policy data A. Yamazaki
i-f 168. Yamazaki further discloses that the apparatus detects its presence at a
different location, namely store B. By detecting its presence in store B,
Yamazaki discloses the first of the two distinct events covered by the claim
limitation-a determination that the location of the apparatus has changed.
Yamazaki also discloses that, upon detecting its presence in the new
location, policy data B is delivered to the device and policy data A can no
longer be used. Yamazaki i-f 168. As we noted above, Appellant
acknowledges this to be the case in their brief. See App. Br. 12 ("Instead,
Yamazaki disclose that if new policy data is acquired at another store B, the
policy data of the store A cannot be used."). This disclosure, buttressed by
Appellant's admission, satisfies the second required event.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Yamazaki discloses "if it is determined in the determination of the location
that the information processing apparatus has moved away from the
particular place, the use of the data is prohibited in the prohibition," as
recited in claims 1, 11, 13, and 15, and we sustain the rejection of those
claims.
Second Issue
With respect to independent claims 10, 12, 14, and 16, Appellant
contends Yamazaki fails to disclose the limitation "if the information
processing apparatus has moved away from the particular place, change back
the changed parameter to an original state." App. Br. 13-14. More
specifically, Appellant argues Yamazaki does not disclose this limitation
because the changes to the device merely prioritize certain tasks for
execution. App. Br. 13.
6
Appeal2017-010944
Application 14/620,592
The Examiner finds the "policy data" described in paragraph 168 of
Yamazaki discloses the recited "parameter." Ans. 14. The Examiner further
finds when Yamazaki's device is present in store A, policy data A is stored
on the device based on the presence of the device store A. Ans. 14 (citing
Yamazaki i-f 168). The Examiner further finds when a user leaves store A
and enters store B, the policy data is changed from policy data A to policy
data B. Id. Subsequently, under Yamazaki's described system, when the
user leaves store Band returns to store A, the policy data (i.e., the claimed
"changed parameter") is returned to policy data A (i.e., its "original state").
Id.
We agree with the Examiner's findings because Appellant's argument
is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The limitation at issue
recites "if the information processing apparatus has moved away from the
particular place, change back the changed parameter to an original state."
App. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). The broad language used by this limitation
does not require a changed parameter that each and every time the device is
moved, as argued by Appellant. For example, the claims does not recite
"each and every time the information apparatus has moved away .... "
Rather, it is sufficient that a device meet this limitation in a single situation.
We agree with the Examiner that a scenario in which the user in Yamazaki
leaves store A and travels to store B, later returning to store A presents a
situation where the disputed limitation is disclosed in the reference. As
such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10, 12, 14,
and 16, and we sustain their rejections.
7
Appeal2017-010944
Application 14/620,592
Remaining Claims
Appellant presents no separate patentability argument for any of
dependent claims. As such, these claims fall along with their respective
independent claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3-24.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8