10876749 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2012)

Ex Parte Sommers

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 16, 2012

10876749 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte ANTHONY L. SOMMERS ____________________ Appeal 2010-002628 Application 10/876,749 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DENISE M. POTHIER, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-002628 Application 10/876,749 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-18 and 21-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method of generating terrain in a virtual world, the method comprising: receiving in a terrain generator a plurality of procedural rules that procedurally describe the terrain in a virtual world without storing terrain data, wherein each rule affects the generation of a portion of the terrain including terrain properties and each rule including at least boundaries, filters, and affectors; generating terrain in the virtual world in accordance with the plurality of procedural rules by writing data to a buffer for rendering terrain in real time on a visual display, wherein the plurality of procedural rules is organized into hierarchical layers such that a single location in the terrain can have multiple procedural rules that overlap, wherein when multiple procedural rules overlap the terrain generator specifies a blend region, wherein the plurality of procedural rules is textually represented so that the boundaries, filters, and affectors are assigned numeric values that represent desired attributes in a logical textual format, wherein the textual representation of the plurality of procedural rules describes the dynamic aspects of the terrain in the virtual world, wherein modification of the terrain in a virtual world is enabled by adding or deleting at least one procedural rule from the plurality of procedural rules; and providing a resource management policy for deallocating memory allocated to unused or unnecessary portions of the terrain. Appeal 2010-002628 Application 10/876,749 3 Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination Santodomingo (US 2005/0171754 A1), Woods (US 5,956,039), and Hammes (“Modeling of ecosystems as a data source for real-time terrain rendering,” Proc. 1st Int’l Symposium on Digital Earth (2001)). 1 2. The Examiner provisionally rejected claim 1 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over: (a) claim 1 of copending Application No. 10/877,512 in view of Hammes and (b) claims 1, 11, 18, and 25 of copending Application No. 10/877,515 in view of Hammes. 2 Appellant’s Contentions Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting all the independent claims 1, 2, 8, 12, and 16 because “Hammes merely discloses combinations of ecosystem layers (i.e., terrain data layers) rather than layers of rules.” (App. Br. 24). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-18 and 21-26 as being unpatentable because Hammes fails to teach hierarchical layers of rules? 1 The remaining dependent claims are all rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Santodomingo, Woods, and Hammes in further combination with various additional references. All these remaining rejections turn on our decision as to the underlying § 103 rejection, and are not further addressed herein. 2 We do not reach these provisional rejections. They are not further addressed herein. Appeal 2010-002628 Application 10/876,749 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has erred. All the claims require that each layer be hierarchical (“wherein the plurality of procedural rules is organized into hierarchical layers”). 3 Appellant’s Specification states that a rule can define a region; can define a road; can define a river; can include a boundary; can include a filter which defines conditions including slope, height, shader, direction, and fractal; or can affect a terrain property such as height, color, shader, flora, and radial flora. (Spec. 1-8). Appellant’s Specification states that rules are organized in layers. (Spec. 8). Appellant’s Specification states that layers can be arranged in a hierarchy. (Spec. 8). Appellant’s Specification states that hierarchies include parent-child or tree-leaf relationships. (Spec. 8). An example of the hierarchy includes choosing a family for a region (e.g., flora), generating the family, and then selecting one of the children in the family. (Spec. 8-9). Appellant provides three examples of hierarchical layers at page 9 of the Specification in paragraph [0062]. We do not agree with the Examiner that the layers in Hammes (see Ans. 9, 26-28) are hierarchical, as required by the claims. 3 A “hierarchy” is: A type of organization that, like a tree, branches into more specific units, each of which is “owned” by the higher level unit immediately above. The Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary; 1991; p.174. Appeal 2010-002628 Application 10/876,749 5 CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 and 21-26 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) On this record, claims 1-18 and 21-26 have not been shown to be unpatentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-18 and 21-26 are reversed. REVERSED msc