Ex Parte Lima et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 25, 201512462938 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2015) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation