Ex Parte Milbert et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201814626617 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018) Copy Citation 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 We REVERSE. 1 Claims 1-21 are withdrawn.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation