Ex Parte Bjorkman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

10594452 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/594,452 09/26/2006 Ulf Bjorkman 69993-236346 9258
26694 7590
VENABLE LLP
P.O. BOX 34385
WASHINGTON, DC 20043-9998
EXAMINER
CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2017 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@Venable.com
cavanhouten@venable.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULF BJORKMAN and ANDERS HOLMQUIST
Appeal 2014-0067711
Application 10/594,4522
Technology Center 3700
Before KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, AMEE A. SHAH, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Robertsson (US 4,218,834, iss. Aug. 26, 1980) and
Varshneya et al. (US 6,386,879 Bl, iss. May 14, 2002). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Dec. 31, 2013), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 13,
2014), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Sept. 26, 2006), and to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 13, 2014), and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Mar. 26, 2013).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is SAAB AB.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-006771
Application 10/594,452
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention is directed to “a weapon effect simulation
system comprising a fire simulation system and at least one hit simulation
system.” Spec. 1.
Claims 1, 26, and 27 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
(Appeal Br. 22, Claims App.) is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below:
1. A weapon effect simulation system, comprising:
a weapon comprising a fire simulation system comprising
a transmitter configured to transmit electromagnetic waves from
a weapon to simulate real ammunition from the weapon, and the
transmitter including information in the electromagnetic waves,
the fire simulation system further comprising a calculating unit
configured to calculate an entire imagined trajectory of the
simulated ammunition and a processor configured to determine
a geographical position of the weapon, wherein the transmitter is
operative to include in the electromagnetic waves information
related to the entire imagined calculated trajectory of the
simulated ammunition given as coordinates in the three-
dimensional space; and
at least one target comprising a hit simulation system
comprising a receiver configured to receive the transmitted
electromagnetic waves from the weapon and a processor
configured to determine whether a target has been hit based on
the information related to the entire imagined calculated
trajectory of the simulated ammunition given as coordinates in
the three-dimensional space in the received electromagnetic
waves.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Robertsson
FF1. Robertsson discloses an invention for “a scoring system for
simulated weapons fire that... is, in addition, much more versatile, being
2
Appeal 2014-006771
Application 10/594,452
capable not only of simple hit-or-miss scoring but also of accurate hit effect
scoring in realistically simulated complex tactical situations.” Robertsson,
col. 2,11. 50-58.
FF2. Sweeping beams are modulated to transmit to the target
information about the relationship between the simulated firing projectile at
the firing instant and the target at the scoring instant, and information about
the nature of the imaginary projectile. Id. at col. 4,11. 62—67.
FF3. The “transmitted information can be employed at the target for
an accurate calculation of the hit effect produced by the imaginary
projectile.” Id. at col. 4,1. 67—5,1. 2.
FF4. The apparatus at the weapon comprises a trajectory calculation
device that issues a trajectory signal which corresponds to the position in its
trajectory that a hypothetical projectile would have had and with regard to
other factors that would significantly influence its trajectory. Id. at col. 8,11.
19-35.
FF5. The relationship between “angular beam position and projective
position at each of the instants when a reflection of the beam is returned to
the detector 3 at the weapon position” is employed for scoring, i.e., whether
the target has been hit. Id. at col. 9,11. 19—24.
FF6. “Scoring on the basis of calculated position of the imaginary
projectile in relation to measured position of the reflector permit accurate
scoring of misses and near misses as well as of direct hits.” Id. at col. 9,11.
37-44.
FF7. “The relationship between the hypothetical projectile and
angular beam positions is calculated by means of a relative position
3
Appeal 2014-006771
Application 10/594,452
calculator 23 that receives inputs from the trajectory calculating device 17
and the target position calculating device 12.” Id. at col. 11,11. 37—41.
FF8. “The results of the continuing comparisons between projectile
and target positions made by the relative position calculator 23 can be
employed and presented in various ways,” such as directly at the weapon
location in a generated image representing at the last the final portion of the
calculated trajectory, informing the gunner of the burst point in relation to
the target, i.e., whether a miss or hit, and/or at the target. Id. at col. 12,11. 5—
11,40-66, col. 13,11. 22-32.
FF9. “[Sjcoring at the target body requires that the equipment at the
weapon location comprise an encoding device 26,” that receives input from
the relative position calculator. Id.at col. 13,11. 64—66.
FF10. Scoring information about the relationship between the
imaginary projectile and the target can be encoded in the beams that are
modulated, by the encoding device, in accordance with information to be
transmitted to the target. Id. at col. 13,1. 64—14,1. 6.
FF11. Based on the information carried in beam modulation and
stored in the vulnerability memory, the result calculation device within the
target apparatus makes a calculation of the hit effect that would have been
achieved by a real projectile if it had had the same trajectory as that
calculated for the imaginary projectile, taking into account the vulnerability
of the target body to such a projectile. Id. at col. 14,1. 67—15,1. 7.
FF12. “When scoring is conducted at the target, the invention lends
itself to evaluation of defensive tactics as well as to scoring of fire directed
at the target.” Id. at col. 15,11. 29-31.
4
Appeal 2014-006771
Application 10/594,452
Varshneya
FF13. Varshneya discloses a gunnery simulator system whereby a
transmitter transmits weapon data, including but not limited to weapon type,
and three-dimensional GPS data (x,y,z) and (Vx, Vy, Vz). Varshneya,
Abstract, col. 4,11. 43^47.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—25
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, that a target comprising a
simulation system comprises, in part, “a processor configured to determine
whether a target has been hit based on the information related to the entire
imagined calculated trajectory of the simulated ammunition.” We agree
with the Appellants that the combination of Robertsson and Varshneya does
not disclose this limitation. See Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner relies primarily on Robertsson for disclosing the
limitation at issue. Final Act. 2—3.
Robertsson discloses that the target’s result calculating device 23
determines the effects of the hit (FF10—FF12), but does not specifically
disclose that the device 23 determines whether or not there was a hit.
Rather, Robertsson discloses that the determination of whether a target has
been hit, i.e., scoring, is performed by the processor of the relative position
calculator 23. FF6—FF10. Although Robertsson does not specifically
disclose the exact location of the calculator 23, it is not included as one of
the components of the target apparatus. See, e.g., Robertsson, col. 14,11. 28—
41, Fig. 3. From Figure 3, it appears the calculator 23 is either within the
weapon apparatus or separate from both the weapon and target apparatuses,
5
Appeal 2014-006771
Application 10/594,452
with the scoring information being transmitted from the calculator to the
target for determination of the effect of the hit. FF9—FF12. Therefore, we
are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Robertsson does not disclose
a target comprising a processor that determines whether the target has been
hit, as required by claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13, Reply Br. 7.
The Examiner relies on Varshneya only for “utilizing a GPS to
determine the weapon’s location, target’s location, range of the weapon
location to the target location and ammunition trajectory relative to the
geographical position of the weapon and the target, [and] hit scoring result.”
Final Act. 3, see also FF13. Thus, the Examiner has not shown, and we do
not otherwise find, that Varshneya cures the deficiency of Robertsson
discussed above.
In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded of error on the part on the
Examiner in the rejection of independent claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1, and of claims 2—25, dependent
therefrom.
Independent claims 26 and 27
The Appellants do not separately argue independent claims 26 and 27.
See Appeal Br. 11. Independent claim 26 is directed to a system comprising
a calculating unit, a transmitter, and “a processor arranged with the
weapon.” Appeal Br. 26—27. Independent claim 27 is directed to a method
comprising calculating with the weapon, modulating waves, transmitting
from the weapon the waves, and “making a determination with the
targets ... as to whether the target has been hit.” Id. at 27. Neither claim,
however, requires that a determination of whether the target has been hit is
performed by a processor within the target apparatus. To the extent the
6
Appeal 2014-006771
Application 10/594,452
Appellants argue that Robertsson does not disclose calculating a trajectory
and transmitting the trajectory to the targets, as required by the claims (see
id. at 16), we find the argument unpersuasive. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings that Robertsson discloses those limitations. See Final
Act. 10-11; see also FF2-FF4, FF8-FF11.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error on the part on
the Examiner in the rejection of independent claims 26 and 27. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of independent claims 26 and 27.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is AFFIRMED.
No time period of 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 IN PART
7