Ex Parte Low et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2012

10672851 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte COLIN ANDREW LOW, DAVID TREVOR CLIFF, and
RYCHARDE JEFFERY HAWKES
____________

Appeal 2010-006553
Application 10/672,851
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL
W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006553
Application 10/672,851

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 1 and 3-11 which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method and a
device suitable for simulating the activities of a plurality of creatures
(Spec.1:6-8). Claim 1, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets
added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. A method of simulating the activities of a plurality of creatures,
the method comprising:
simulating activities of the plurality of creatures at a first mode
of simulation observable by a user, wherein the first mode of
simulation is less detailed and less computationally intensive than a
second mode of simulation; and
[1] simulating an activity of one of the plurality of creatures at
the second mode of simulation observable by the user, wherein results
of the simulation at the second mode of simulation are used to provide
a simulation of the plurality of creatures at the first mode of
simulation,
[2] wherein said second mode of simulation is utilised in
response to one or more of said plurality of creatures simulated by
said first mode undergoing a change in environment, the second mode
being utilised to simulate the activity of said one or more of said
plurality of creatures undergoing the change in environment.

Appeal 2010-006553
Application 10/672,851

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Blizzard Entertainment, Starcraft - game user manual, copyright 1998
Blizzard Entertainment.

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2. Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
unpatentable over Starcraft.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiners findings of facts at pages 4:10-5:2 of the
Answer. Additional facts may appear in the Analysis section below.

ANALYSIS
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 is improper because the method steps are tied to a computer (Br. 6,
Reply Br. 2).
We agree with the Examiner. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea
that can be performed in a series of mental steps in the mind of a person.
While the Appellants argue that claim 1 takes place with a computer (Br. 6,
Reply 2) there is no language in the claim limit that would limit it to such a
device. For this reason the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims
under this rejection is sustained. Claim 11 does recite “a simulator device”
but this is in the preamble and not a limitation to the claim. Regardless, the
Appeal 2010-006553
Application 10/672,851

4
human mind is capable of performing simulations and the rejection of claim
11 under this rejection is sustained as well.

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is improper because the Starcraft reference does not disclose
“wherein said second mode of simulation is utilised in response to one or
more of said plurality of creatures simulated by said first mode undergoing a
change in environment” (Br. 8-10). Similar arguments have been presented
in the Reply Brief at pages 3-4. In contrast, the Examiner has determined
that the rejection of record is proper (Ans. 4-5, 10-13).
We agree with the Examiner. In the Starcraft reference the main
screen serves as a second mode of detailed simulation and the mini map
serves as first mode of simulation which is less detailed (p. 13). The results
of an activity in the second mode of simulation (the main screen) are used to
provide details to the mini map (pp. 13-14, 16-18). When viewing the maps
you can move around in either scenario, using either the mini map or the
main screen (p. 18). If the environment on the mini map changed then that
result would be displayed in the main screen meeting the requirements of
claim limitation [2].
The Appellants argue that in Starcraft that the main display and the
mini map run concurrently so that the second mode of simulation is not
utilised in response to one or more of the creatures in the first mode
undergoing a change in environment. First, there is nothing in the claim that
requires non-concurrent running of two simulations. We do agree with the
Appellants that both the main display and mini map in the Starcraft
Appeal 2010-006553
Application 10/672,851

5
reference run concurrently. However, as noted by the Examiner, the mini
map and main screen are more than just a larger map and magnifying glass
view (Ans. 10-11). In the mini map, your buildings and units appear as
green squares whereas the players units and buildings appear as different
colors (p. 13). As the player can move around in either scenario (either the
mini map or the main screen) the actions in that scenario are displayed
differently (colors, shapes) meeting the cited claim requirements. For these
reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is sustained.
Claims 10 and 11 contain a similar limitation and the rejection of these
claims is sustained for these same reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims listed in the Rejection section above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-11 is sustained.

AFFIRMED

MP