Ex Parte Beck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 1, 2019

14103516 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/103,516 12/11/2013 10904 7590 02/05/2019 Lockheed Martin and Withrow & Terranova 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Timothy B. Beck 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. 1202-068 (IS-00493) 6988 EXAMINER MUSSELMAN, TIMOTHY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/05/2019 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): patents@wt-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMOTHY B. BECK, CHRISTOPHER H. MEYER, DARREN H. GOLDFARB, WESLEY L. BARD, and MICHAEL J. SCHROETER 1 Appeal2018-003769 Application 14/103,516 Technology Center 3700 Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a): (1) claims 1-8, 13-21, and 24 as unpatentable over Poole (US 2012/0088209 Al, published Apr. 12, 2012) and Christensen (US 2009/0215011 Al, published Aug. 27, 2009); and (2) claims 9-12, 22, and 23 as unpatentable over Poole, Christensen, and 1 Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Appellant") is the applicant as provided under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 1 ("Appeal Br."), filed Aug. 21, 2017. Appeal2018-003769 Application 14/103,516 Weinert (US 2012/0289803 Al, published Nov. 15, 2012). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter "relate[ s] to simulation platforms, and in particular to a simulation platform that facilitates the integration of external objects into the simulation platform." Spec. ,r 1, Figs. 1, 3. Claims 1, 14, and 24 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. A method for generating a mission file, comprising: determining, by a simulation platform module executing on a computing device comprising a processor, that an external simulation object exists; initiating the external simulation object into an executing state; receiving from the external simulation object: a first event mapping that maps a first input to a first event implemented by the external simulation object in response to a notification of an occurrence of the first input wherein the first input comprises data that indicates that at least one peripheral device associated with the computing device has been manipulated; and an object attribute identifier that identifies an object attribute controlled by the external simulation object; receiving a first user input from a user via a peripheral device associated with the computing device; determining that the first user input matches the first input; notifying the external simulation object of the occurrence of the first input; and 2 Appeal2018-003769 Application 14/103,516 storing a first input identifier that identifies the first input in a data structure. ANALYSIS Obviousness over Poole and Christensen Claims 1---8, 13-21, and 24 Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for generating a mission file including the step of "determining, by a simulation platform module executing on a computing device comprising a processor, that an external simulation object exists." Appeal Br. 20, Claims App. The Examiner finds "the simulated participant, explicitly disclosed in paragraphs 0006-0007 [ of Poole] as being external to the simulation system, is the external object." Ans. 9; see also Final Act. 2. 2 Appellant contends the Examiner's interpretation that "the 'simulated participant' of Poole is the claimed 'external simulation object' is not reasonable given the ordinary meaning of that term. Nor is it consistent with the way the term is used in the Specification." Reply Br. 4; see also Appeal Br. 9-11. 3 According to Appellant, a skilled artisan "would know that the 'simulated participant' of Poole is not an 'external simulation object,' which is an object in a codebase[,] which is externally developed but can be integrated into the operation of a native simulation platform module under certain conditions." Reply Br. 4 ( citing Spec. ,r 30); see also id. at 3, 5 ("The simulated participant in Poole is not an 'external simulation object' 2 Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), dated Dec. 29, 2017; Final Office Action ("Final Act."), dated Mar. 15, 2017. 3 Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), filed Feb. 23, 2018. 3 Appeal2018-003769 Application 14/103,516 since it is not an object in a codebase which is externally developed but can be integrated into the operation of a native simulation platform module."); Appeal Br. 9-11. Appellant's Specification describes that (1) the subject invention "allow[ s] the relatively seamless integration of external simulation objects with native simulation objects that form a part of the simulation platform module"; and (2) "external simulation objects ... have an independent code base from that of the simulation platform module, but which interoperate with the simulation platform module in a manner substantially similar to a native simulation object." Spec. ,r 6; see also id. ,r 30 ( describing native simulation objects as "part of the code base of the simulation platform module 18"). As an initial matter, we agree with Appellant that there is nothing in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Poole to indicate that "the 'simulated participant' of Poole is 'external' to the simulation system." Reply Br. 4--5. Poole discloses a simulated participant system that is configured to interoperate with existing simulators to create internally an integrated simulation platform with enhanced capabilities "to provide, on a readily-scalable basis, simulated participants of one or more different types that are based on dynamically constructed virtual models of live simulation participants." Poole ,r 4. Paragraph 6 of Poole discloses that "the present system can provide simulated participants of varying types and in varying numbers as may be required to meet the needs of a given simulation scenario." Poole ,r 6. Stated differently, additional/different internally generated simulation participants can be supplied by the simulated participant system to the simulator depending on the specified simulation scenario. In addition, 4 Appeal2018-003769 Application 14/103,516 paragraph 7 of Poole merely discusses the communication protocols and modules that can be used with the simulated participant system. Poole ,r 7. Moreover, although paragraph 27 of Poole discloses "external applications/systems," there is no discussion in that paragraph of "simulation participants" let alone that the "simulation participants" are part of the "external applications/systems." Poole ,r 27; see also Final Act. 2; Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 5. For these reasons, the Examiner does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the "simulated participants" of Poole constitute the "external simulation object" of claim 1. 4 Similar to claim 1, independent claims 14 and 24 include language directed to "an external simulation object." Appeal Br. 23-24, 27, Claims App. The Examiner relies on the same unsupported findings in Poole for claims 14 and 24 as discussed above for claim 1. See Final Act. 2--4. Thus, the Examiner's findings with respect to Poole are deficient for claims 14 and 24 as well. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1- 8, 13-21, and 24 as unpatentable over Poole and Christensen. Obviousness over Poole, Christensen, and Weinert Claims 9-12, 22, and 23 The Examiner's rejection of claims 9-12, 22, and 23 as unpatentable over Poole, Christensen, and Weinert is based on the same unsupported findings discussed above with respect to independent claim 1. See Final 4 The Examiner relies on the teachings of Christensen for disclosing the step of "storing a first input identifier that identifies the first input in a data structure." See Final Act. 3--4; see also Appeal Br. 20, Claims App. 5 Appeal2018-003769 Application 14/103,516 Act. 5. The Examiner does not rely on Weinert to remedy the deficiencies of Poole. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-12, 22, and 23 as unpatentable over Poole, Christensen, and Weinert. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8, 13- 21, and 24 as unpatentable over Poole and Christensen. We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9-12, 22, and 23 as unpatentable over Poole, Christensen, and Weinert. REVERSED 6