Ex Parte Beck et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2019

14103516 - (D) (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. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 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. § 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. § 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