Ex Parte Shuman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2013

10798632 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL V. SHUMAN,
KURT BROOKS UHLIR, and CHRISTOPHER DOUGHERTY
____________

Appeal 2011-006667
Application 10/798,632
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael V. Shuman et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 42-80. Appellants
cancelled claims 1-41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2011-006667
Application 10/798,632

2
The Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to a “method that facilitate[s]
development of computer games that include representations or depictions of
simulated real world geographic areas.” Spec. 1, ll. 15-17. Claims 42, 59,
60, 68, and 76 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 42, reproduced
below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter.
42. A method for facilitating game development, the method
comprising:
producing, by a map developer, a source geographic
database containing data representing a real-world locale
including
(i) geographic coordinates of positions of roads,
(ii) street names of the roads,
(iii) address ranges along the roads,
(iv) turn restrictions at intersections of the roads,
(v) road connectivity, and
(vi) road shape;
transforming, by the map developer, the data
representing the real-world locale into data representing an
imaginary geographic locale to form a template geographic
database;
storing, by the map developer, the template geographic
database on a computer-readable medium; and
providing, by the map developer to a game developer, the
computer-readable medium containing the template geographic
database, the game developer being separate from the map
developer;
wherein the template geographic database is used by the
game developer along with other computer-game components
to form a computer game.

Appeal 2011-006667
Application 10/798,632

3
The Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
I. claims 42-47, 51-64, 66-72, and 74-78 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Huston (US 6,146,143, issued Nov. 14, 2000,
Halt (US 6,343,301 B1, Jan. 29, 2002), and Lechner (US 2003/0059743 A1,
published Mar. 27, 2003); and
II. claims 48-50, 65, 73, 79, and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huston, Lechner, and Graf (US 4,645,459, issued Feb. 24,
1987).

OPINION
Rejection I – Obviousness based on Huston, Halt, and Lechner
The Examiner relies on Lechner to teach the transforming step in each
of independent claims 42, 59, 60, 68, and 76. See Ans. 3-8. In particular,
the Examiner finds that “Lechner discloses creating a database . . . for a
flight simulator based on a predefined mission route,” and “two methods for
a terrain model designer or map developer [to obtain] images required to
properly depict a mission.” Ans. 5 (citing Lechner, para. [0053], line 29,
and Abstr.). The second method is for the terrain model designer to acquire
the data from other map developers such as the Joint Services Imaging
Processing Station (JSIPS), the Gateway Data Navigator (GDN), the United
States Imagery and Geo-spatial Information Services (USIGS), the Master
Environment Library (MEL), weather service feeds, commercial database or
the like. Id. (citing Lechner, par. [0007], ll. 1-8). The requested information
is limited to data the designer, pilot, and other personnel have appropriate
clearance towards, and is further limited to only a certain radial distance
Appeal 2011-006667
Application 10/798,632

4
along a mission route of a real world locale. Id. (citing Lechner, par. [0007],
ll. 8-10, and par. [0003], ll. 1-11).
From Lechner’s teachings discussed supra, the Examiner interprets
Lechner to disclose “the listed map developers as transforming a larger
database of data on real world locale into a smaller or template database
containing data on an imaginary geographic locale,” and “[t]hus the same
entity that produces the source database also transforms the template
database.” Ans. 5-6. In other words, the Examiner interprets “‘imaginary’
as being describ[ed] by the template database containing altered
information,” and “Lechner teaches the map developers limiting or altering
data for a template database by providing only authorized data that depicts a
portion of the world” so that “the boundaries of this template map
misrepresent the real world” and “therefore the Examiner considers the
template database to contain an imaginary locale when compared to the real
world.” Ans. 6. Finally, the Examiner explains that:
To further clarify the Examiner's meaning towards boundaries
consider a template database simply containing Time Square in
New York City (NYC). A person using the simulator to travel
through a virtual Time Square is experiencing an imaginary
geographic locale since borders or boundaries prevent them
from traveling outside of Time Square. Thus misrepresenting
the position of Time Square with respect to the rest of NYC and
the Earth. Furthermore, copyright laws and licensing fees could
prevent the developers of the simulator from including all of the
stores and ads known to have residency in Time Square.
Id.
Appellants argue that “even if one of ordinary skill in the art would
have combined the references, there is no teaching, suggestion, or mention
of transforming, by the map developer, the data representing the real-world
Appeal 2011-006667
Application 10/798,632

5
locale into data representing an imaginary geographic local to form a
template geographic database.” App. Br. 9. We agree.
Lechner is directed to a method and apparatus for automatically
generating a terrain model for display during flight simulation. Lechner,
Title. Although Lechner discloses “creat[ing] a terrain model that is stored
in a database 35” (Lechner, para. [0053], l. 29), the Examiner has failed to
point to anything in Lechner that discloses “transforming, by the map
developer, the data representing the real-world locale into data representing
an imaginary geographic locale to form a template geographic database.”
App. Br., Clms. App’x.
In response to the Examiner’s finding that “when the outside sources
of Lechner (‘the map developer”) send terrain source data to a simulator
developer, only authorized data depicting a portion of the world is provided,
and, thus, the boundaries of the authorized portion misrepresent the real
world resulting in an imaginary geographic local,” Appellants state, and we
agree, that “just because data that represents a portion of a real-world locale
is provided does not mean data representing a real-world locale is
transformed into an imaginary locale.” App. Br. 10. We also agree with
Appellants’ arguments that “[w]hatever authorized data that is provided in
Lechner, even if it only represents a portion of the real-world, still represents
a real-world area, not an imaginary locale,” and that “the Joint Services
Imaging Processing Station, the Gateway Data Navigator, and the United
States Imagery and Geospatial Information Services, based on [Lechner’s]
disclosure, do not transform real-world terrain source data into data
representing imaginary locales.” Id.
Appeal 2011-006667
Application 10/798,632

6
As Appellants’ arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 42-47, 51-64, 66-72, and 74-
78 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huston, Halt, and
Lechner.

Rejection II – Obviousness based on Huston, Lechner, and Graf
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection relies on the erroneous finding
that Lechner discloses the transforming step. Ans. 9. For the same reasons
as discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 48-
50, 65, 73, 79, and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Huston, Lechner, and Graf.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 42-80.

REVERSED

Klh