Ex Parte Lima et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2015

12462938 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2015)

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.
12/462,938 08/03/2009 Kennet M. Lima 84514 4477
23523 7590 11/27/2015
NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER
DIVISION NEWPORT
1176 HOWELL STREET, Code 00L
Bldg. 102T
NEWPORT, RI 02841
EXAMINER
HE, WEIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KENNETH M. LIMA, RICHARD R. SHELL, TODD P. DRURY,
and DOUGLAS B. MAXWELL
____________________

Appeal 2013-005077
Application 12/462,9381
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’ claimed subject matter provides a feeder program for
collecting and reading in and maintaining a time synchronization for combat
fire solutions which may include threat containment regions. The threat

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The United States of
America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy (Br. 1).
Appeal 2013-005077
Application 12/462,938

2
containment regions are defined in terms of a probability of at least one
threat being located therein. A three-dimensional viewer program displays
bathymetry information, an ownship relative position relative to said
bathometry information, and determines what portions of said plurality of
threat containment regions and said tracking and position information are to
be displayed based on an angle of a view. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for displaying underwater tactical data,
comprising:
providing a feeder program for collecting and inputting
data to a three-dimensional viewer program, said feeder
program being independently operable from said three-
dimensional viewer program;
providing a list of data sources for said feeder program;
inputting bathymetry data defining an underwater bottom
to said three-dimensional viewer program;
inputting icons for an ownship three-dimensional viewer
program;
utilizing said feeder program for collecting and inputting
position and track data for said ownship to said three-
dimensional viewer;
utilizing said feeder program for collecting and inputting
a plurality of threat containment regions wherein each of said
plurality of threat containment regions is defined in terms of a
probability of at least one threat being located therein based on
contact information, said at least one threat comprising at least
one of other vehicles, when available said feeder program
inputting updated position and track data for said other vehicles
based on updated contact information;
providing a display;
displaying selected of said inputted information;
controlling said display with respect to an angle of view
of a viewer; and
controlling the direction of time for said display.
Appeal 2013-005077
Application 12/462,938

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 7–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yanshen Zhu et al., INTEGRATION OF UNDERWATER
SONAR SIMULATION WITH A GEOGRAFICAL [sic] INFORMATION
SYSTEM, Proc. of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conf., 1378–86 (2007)
(“Zhu”) and Coleman (US 2009/0087029 A1; published Apr. 2, 2009).
Final Act. 6–14.2
The Examiner rejected claims 2–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhu, Coleman, and Baylog (US 7,020,046 B1; issued
Mar. 28, 2006). Id. at 15–17.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ZHU AND COLEMAN
The Examiner finds that Appellants’ claimed invention as recited in
claim 1 is taught or suggested by Zhu, except that Zhu does not explicitly
disclose a three-dimensional display and “controlling said display with
respect to an angle of view of a viewer.” Final Act. 6–9. The Examiner
cites Coleman for these limitations and reasons that combining the teachings
of the references would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention for the purpose of accurately tracking and
positioning a potential target in near real time. Id. at 10 (citing Coleman
¶ 123).
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that: 1) Zhu does not specifically
teach threat containment regions defined in terms of the probability of a

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action mailed May 2,
2012 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed October 2, 2012 (“Br.”); and
(3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 20, 2012 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2013-005077
Application 12/462,938

4
threat being located therein based on contact information; 2) Zhu does not
teach controlling the direction of time; 3) the combination of Zhu and
Coleman does not teach the innovative concept of Appellants’ present
invention; and 3) the Examiner has not demonstrated either a known
problem or the obvious solution encompassed by Appellants’ claim. Br.
10–13.
Regarding claim 7, Appellants argue that Zhu’s detection and
classification methodology with tracking aspects for the purpose of testing
sensors, while similar, is not the same as displaying a submarine tactical
situation regarding “a time synchronization for combat fire solutions
comprising a plurality of threat containment regions” as recited in claim 7.
Id. at 13. Appellants also reiterate arguments regarding the combination of
Zhu and Coleman. Id. at 14–15.
Regarding claims 8–10, Appellants argue that Zhu’s mere mention of
an algorithm does not serve to support the Examiner’s proposition that it is
the same type of algorithm that reduces a size of one or more threat
containment regions as claimed by the Appellants in claim 8. Id. at 16.

ISSUES
I. Under § 103(a), has the Examiner erred by finding that Zhu and
Coleman collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) a feeder program collecting and inputting threat containment
regions defined in terms of a probability of at least one threat being located
therein as recited in claim 1?
(2) controlling the direction of time for a display as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2013-005077
Application 12/462,938

5
(3) a feeder program for reading in and maintaining a time
synchronization for combat fire solutions comprising a plurality of threat
containment regions and tracking and position information based on a
plurality of contacts for a plurality of vehicles, as recited in claim 7?
(4) a reduction algorithm operable to reduce a size of said plurality of
threat containment regions as recited in claim 8?
II. Is the Examiner’s combining the teachings of Zhu and Coleman
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue that Zhu does not specifically teach threat
containment regions defined in terms of the probability of a threat being
located therein based on contact information. Br. 10–11. We note, however,
that in view of Appellants’ Specification (see Background of the Invention –
Description of the Prior Art ¶¶ 4 and 5), such probabilistically-determined
regions were known. To whatever extent Appellants argue probabilistically-
determined threat containment regions are not present in the cited references,
Appellants have admitted this concept pre-existed Appellants’ claimed
invention.
Putting that issue aside momentarily, we note that the limitation in
question recites a “feeder program” for collecting and inputting a particular
type of information, which information is thereafter updated, displayed, and
controlled. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s conclusion that
Appeal 2013-005077
Application 12/462,938

6
Zhu and Coleman would have taught or suggested such a feeder program to
one skilled in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention.
Specifically, Zhu discloses integrating sensor data from U.S. Navy
ships with a geographical information system (GIS) for the purpose of
improving threat recognition, undersea tactical awareness, countermeasure
emissions, and counter-weapon fire control. Zhu Abstract. Zhu also
discloses a “sensor-dependent” detection range around a ship. Id. at § 2, ¶ 1.
Using simulation software, detected objects are tracked on a display. Id. at
§ 4, ¶ 4. Accordingly, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of Appellants’ invention would have understood Zhu to teach a feeder
program for collecting and inputting threat-related information. We now
turn to whether it would have been obvious that the threat information would
have included probabilistically-determined threat containment regions.
Appellants disclose that a threat containment region, or area of
uncertainty (AOU), is the “volume in which a threat is presumably located.”
Spec. ¶ 5. Appellants further explain that “as this volume becomes larger,
then the probability of the target actually being within this volume
increases” such that “if one wishes to obtain a 100% probability that a target
is within a given threat containment region, then the threat containment
region may be quite large.” Id. In other words, a threat containment region
may be understood as a volume of sufficient size that a detected threat has a
given probability of being contained within it. In view of this, we see no
error in the Examiner’s reasoning that Zhu’s sensor-dependent detection
range around a ship (Zhu § 2, ¶ 1) meets the claimed threat containment
region. Additionally, Zhu teaches that threat objects are created according to
Appeal 2013-005077
Application 12/462,938

7
user-specified probability distributions. Id. at § 4, ¶ 3. Accordingly, we see
no error in the Examiner’s finding that Zhu discloses “utilizing [a] feeder
program for collecting and inputting a plurality of threat containment
regions wherein each of said plurality of threat containment regions is
defined in terms of a probability of at least one threat being located therein
based on contact information,” as recited in claim 1.
We also see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Zhu teaches
“controlling the direction of time for a display” for essentially the reasons
stated by the Examiner. Ans. 4 (citing Zhu, Fig. 12 and § 6 “Results”). We
agree that Zhu’s viewer, which tracks an object dynamically in time (see
Zhu § 6), at least suggests the limitation, as broadly but reasonably
construed.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the
combination of Zhu and Coleman. Br. 11–13. Appellants essentially argue
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
combine Zhu and Coleman and would not be capable of doing so. Id. at 12–
13. Appellants assert that the Examiner has not demonstrated that either the
known method of combining Zhu with Coleman or that the result of said
combination would have been predictable. Id. at 12. These amount to bald
assertions, however, and do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reason for
combining, namely, “tracking and positioning the target in 3D terrain
environment so as to define the area with potential threat for moving objects
and explicit visualization technology to enable displaying in near real-time
and accurately track and position the target.” Final Act. 10 (citing Coleman
¶ 123). The Examiner also finds that Coleman teaches a particular
Appeal 2013-005077
Application 12/462,938

8
advantage of 3D display and viewing angle, namely displaying a target in
near real-time and accurately tracking and positioning it. Ans. 5 (citing
Coleman ¶¶ 9 and 123). That is, the Examiner proposes to use Coleman’s
technique to improve on Zhu. See id. Moreover, the Examiner provides a
reason that one skilled in the art would have recognized that Coleman’s
teaching would improve on Zhu in a similar manner, and as such, using
Coleman’s technique with Zhu would be considered obvious. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claim 7
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments regarding the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Br. 13–15. Claim 7 recites, in pertinent
part, “a feeder program comprising instructions for reading in and
maintaining a time synchronization for combat fire solutions comprising a
plurality of threat containment regions.” Appellants reiterate arguments
from claim 1 and argue that Zhu’s mention of “threat recognition,”
“undersea tactical awareness,” and “countermeasures” “does not mean that
Zhu is employing a time synchronization for combat fire solutions.” Id. at
14. We are unpersuaded of error for the above reasons and reasons stated by
the Examiner. Ans. 5–6. We sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim
7, relying on the Examiner’s findings and conclusion, which we adopt. Final
Act. 10–13; Ans. 5–6.
Appeal 2013-005077
Application 12/462,938

9
Claims 8–10
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 or of claim 9,
which depends from claim 8. Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and further
recites “a reduction algorithm operable to reduce a size of said plurality of
threat containment regions.” The Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 cites
Zhu’s mention of modeling algorithms that “have helped to improve the
effectiveness of the ship’s sensor systems.” Final Act. 13. Appellants argue
“the mere mention of an algorithm does not serve to support the proposition
that it is the same type of algorithm that performs the same function as
claimed.” Br. 16. The Examiner responds by saying Appellants
“substantially repeat[] arguments made regarding claim 7” (Ans. 6 (bolding
omitted)), which is not the case. We, therefore, agree with Appellants. On
this record, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8 and
9. We note, however, that whether this limitation would have been obvious
in view of Appellants’ admission mentioned above—that probabilistically-
determined threat containment regions pre-existed Appellants’ claimed
invention (see Background of the Invention – Description of the Prior Art,
¶¶ 4 and 5)—is not before us.
Regarding claim 10, however, because Appellants rely on arguments
regarding claim 7, which we find unpersuasive and from which claim 10
directly depends, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2–6.
Final Act. 15–17. Regarding claims 2–6, Appellants argue the combination
Appeal 2013-005077
Application 12/462,938

10
of Zhu, Coleman, and Baylog, relying on arguments presented with respect
to claim 1 and similarly arguing this combination. Br. 16–18. Appellants do
not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s proposed rational for combining Zhu,
Coleman, and Baylog, namely, “so as to limit the search space and reduce
the cost with highly efficient search in the region of feasible solutions and
concentrates on the subset of plausible target tracks.” Final Act. 16 (citing
Baylog 17:60–66).
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, under § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1–7 and 10 but did err in rejecting claims 8 and 9.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7 and 10 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8 and 9 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh