Summary:
U.S. Patent No. 9,266,022 (the '022 Patent) describes a method to pause a game due to the player physically entering into a danger zone. Motion control video games often require players to move physically. Physically moving can become a problem when the player does not realize where he/she is in relation to other objects, like the television. It is possible that a player does not realize he/she has moved closer to the television due to being intensely focused on the game. The '022 describes a method to warn players before crashing into the television by creating several exclusion zones using a console's motion sensors. The first zone is a warning zone, so when a player enters into it, a warning is displayed telling the player he/she is getting too close. If the player ignores the warning and enters the second zone, the system pauses the game. The game will resume after a set amount of time or if the player manually resumes.

Abstract:
A system for use in an interactive gaming console system wherein the gaming console system uses a sensor monitor to detect player actions, wherein either the sensor monitor's motion and proximity sensors or dedicated motion and proximity sensors detect whenever an object enters an exclusion zone, which is the area wherein the object is too close to the sensor monitor. If an object is detected within the exclusion zone, then the game being played by the gaming system is paused at the point of played and resumed after a set or settable time delay or after a manual resume command is issued by user in the usual way. A warning zone can also be defined just beyond the exclusion zone so that a warning signal of appropriate type can be issued to warn a player that the player is approaching the exclusion zone allowing the player to back away from the exclusion zone.
Illustrative Claim:


Researched By: Andrew F. Thomas

On April 9, 2018, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of defendants Microsoft Corporation, Ubisoft, Inc., Nintendo of America, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., and Majesco Entertainment in a patent infringement suit brought by Australian individual Richard J. Baker.   The suit relates to Baker’s U.S. Patent No. 5,486,001, which relates to an instructional aid for movements.  The accused products included video games that incorporated an image capturing device (like a camera) connected to a gaming console or personal computer.


The ’001 Patent reads, in claim 1 and as amended during prosecution:

capturing and storing initial visual image signals representative of a particular movement at a first location,

storing preferred image signals representative of a selected preferred movement at a second location remote from said first location in a data base of a computer,

transmitting said captured and stored visual image signals from said first location to said computer at said second location,

. . .

transmitting said regenerated signals from said computer at said remote second location to said first location and stored in image presentation means which permits viewing thereof with dialogue relating to said regenerated visual secondary image signals.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that “remote,” as used above, requires “more than physical separation at the same location.”  The Federal Circuit found that this amendment prevented infringement by any of the defendants, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents.

Cases like these emphasize the importance of careful patent prosecution.  Per the Federal Circuit, the “first location” and “second limitation” language used above was added to traverse a reference (U.S. Patent No. 5,184,295 to Mann).  Little changes like these, which invoke the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, can have significant ramifications during litigation, as demonstrated here.  It’s game over for Mr. Baker in this case.