Ex Parte Milbert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

14626617 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/626,617 02/19/2015 Randy L. Milbert
93175 7590 11/30/2018
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP-Polaris
300 N. Meridian Street
Suite 2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204
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.
PLR-OOPR-26280.0lP-l-US-E 2641
EXAMINER
TISSOT, ADAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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):
inteas@faegrebd.com
sue.meyer@polaris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANDY L. MILBERT, ERIKS. FREED, and KYLE K. ESTES
Appeal2018-003237
Application 14/626,617
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
Decision rejecting claims 22-36. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Claims 1-21 are withdrawn. Final Act. 1.
Appeal2018-003237
Application 14/626,617
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 22, 25, 29, and 33 are independent, with claims 23, 24, 26-28,
30-32, and 34--36 depending from claim 22, 25, 29, or 33. Claim 22 is
reproduced below:
22. A system for generating tactical routes, the system
compnsmg:
a global positioning system having an input operable to
receive user input to place one or more waypoints; the global
positioning system further including a system for generating at
least one additional waypoint at least partially responsive to the
waypoint placed based on the received user input, the system for
generating at least one additional waypoint including:
an intervisibility database pre-populated with pre-
computed optical lines of sight between locations or nodes in
geographic terrain;
an intervisibility analyzer for analyzing propagation
of optical lines of sight between locations or nodes in geographic
terrain, including generating a viewshed for each node using a
position of each node, the viewshed including a set whose
elements comprise other nodes having an optical line of sight to
each node, and counting the number of the elements in the
viewshed to determine a cardinality size of the viewshed as the
visibility of each node for quantifying an extent to which a
traveler is exposed when traveling across terrain represented by
each node;
a speed analyzer for analyzing speeds of travelers
across the locations or nodes in the geographic terrain, including
retrieving a land cover map and traversal matrix, querying the
land cover map for a terrain type for each node using a position
of each node, returning a speed of the terrain type found in the
traversal matrix representing how fast the traveler can travel
across terrain represented by each of the nodes;
a cost generator for generating a blended cost grid
using said intervisibility and speed analyses;
2
Appeal2018-003237
Application 14/626,617
a minimum edge cost finder for generating a
minimum cost edge using said blended cost grid and configured
for searching edges of a graph to find the minimum cost edge
used for computing heuristics, the minimum cost edge being the
edge with a minimum blended cost between any two adjacent
nodes in the graph; and
a route generator for generating routes that facilitate
tactical movement based on said blended cost grid and computed
heuristics.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lundberg (US 2006/0031004 Al, published Feb. 9, 2006),
Caldwell (D. R. Caldwell et al., Analysis and Visualization of Visibility
Swfaces, U. S. Army Eng. Res. & Dev. Ctr. 2003), and Milbert (US
6,963,800 Bl, issued Nov. 8, 2005).
2. Claims 25-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lundberg, Caldwell, Milbert, and De Floriani (Leila De
Floriani & Paola Magillo, Intervisibility on Terrains Geographic Information
Systems: Principles, Techniques, Management and Applications John Wiley
& Sons 543-556 (1999)).
OPINION
Claim 22 recites "[a] system for generating tactical routes" that
includes "a speed analyzer for analyzing speeds of travelers across the
locations or nodes in the geographic terrain, including retrieving a land
cover map and traversal matrix." Independent claims 25, 29, and 33 each
include similar requirements.
3
Appeal2018-003237
Application 14/626,617
In each of the rejections of claims 22, 25, 29, and 33, the Examiner
cites Lundberg as teaching the majority of claim limitations, but
acknowledges that Lundberg does not include various limitations, such as
the "speed analyzer." See, e.g., Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner cites Milberg
as teaching a "speed analyzer," and proposes "modify[ing] Lundberg to
include the teachings of Milbert for the advantage of avoiding slow areas
while also minimizing intervisibility," as well as "to reduce risk by avoiding
enemy attacks and battlefield obstructions and to minimize[] energy
expenditure along safe routes by taking into account the speeds at which
soldiers can traverse various types of terrain." Id. 8 ( citing Mil berg 4: 6-11,
7:46-66).
Appellant responds that "Lundberg is about flight paths" and "[i]n the
consideration of flight paths, ground terrain variations and the impact of
groundcover on speed of traversal are not relevant to aerial traversals."
Appeal Br. 22. Because of this difference, Appellant contends that "[o]ne of
skill in the art would not read Milbert and deem it to be obvious to combine
it with Lundberg." Id.; see also Reply Br. 6-7 (explaining that "there would
be no reason to incorporate, e.g., the impact of ground cover on speed of
traversal, since aircraft fly above ground cover"). Appellant contends that
"the Examiner has not provided a motivation for adapting the system in
Lundberg to use ground traversal logistics, rather than elevation[]
characteristics, nor has the Examiner explained how such a modified system
focusing on land speed could still fulfill the intended purpose of Lundberg."
Reply Br. 7.
Appellant's contentions are persuasive. There is no dispute that
Lundberg is related to tactical routes for aerial vehicles, nor is there any
4
Appeal2018-003237
Application 14/626,617
dispute that Milbert is related to tactical routes for ground soldiers. The
portions of Milbert cited by the Examiner in support of the rejection
describe, for example, "creat[ing] a path from a source location to a
destination location" that "reduces risk by avoiding enemy attacks and
battlefield obstructions" and also "minimizes energy expenditure along safe
routes by taking into account the speeds at which soldiers can traverse
various types of terrain." Milbert 4: 6-11. Milbert, as well as the "speed
analyzer" limitations recited in the pending claims, are related to travel of
soldiers on the ground. The Examiner offers no explanation as to why one
skilled in the art would have modified Lundberg's teachings of tactical aerial
routes based on the ground-based routes taught in Milbert.
It is not clear how or why any teaching in Milbert of avoiding slow
ground routes applies to the aerial routes of Lundberg (see Final Act. 8), as
those aerial routes do not traverse that same terrain. It is also unclear how or
why avoiding battlefield obstructions to minimize a soldier's energy
expenditure applies to the aerial routes of Lundberg (see id.). The Examiner
fails to provide sufficient explanation for the proposed combination of
teachings. The stated bases for the rejections of dependent claims 23, 24,
26-28, 30-32, and 34--36 do not cure this deficiency.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 22-36.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 22-36.
REVERSED
5