Ex Parte Sommers

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 21, 2011

10877515 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 21, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANTHONY L. SOMMERS
____________________

Appeal 2009-012914
Application 10/877,515
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 2009-012914
Application 10/877,515

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A computer readable medium including a computer-
implemented system for generating terrain in a virtual world, the
system comprising:
a plurality of procedural rules configured to generate a virtual
terrain in the virtual world,
wherein said plurality of procedural rules is organized into
hierarchical layers such that a single location in the terrain can have
multiple procedural rules that overlap and the terrain has at least one
location that has overlapping rules, each hierarchical layer defining
boundaries, filters, and affectors; and
a terrain generator configured to process the plurality of
procedural rules so as to generate a virtual representation of the
terrain,
wherein when multiple procedural rules overlap the terrain
generator specifies a blend region and initiates a boundary influence
computation to blend heights and colors to prevent hard, visible
discontinuities at the overlap of the procedural rules,
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, and
wherein the terrain is modified by adding or deleting at least
one rule from the plurality of procedural rules.

Appeal 2009-012914
Application 10/877,515

3
Rejection on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 11-19, 22-33, 36-38, and
42-47 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
of Powers (US 6,362,817 B2), Wald (US 5,790,123), and Sanz-Pastor (US
6,747,659 B1).
1

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting all the
independent claims (1, 11, 18, 25, 32, 36, 38, 40, and 42) because the
symbol map of Powers is not a hierarchical layer of rules (App. Br. 13) as
asserted by the Examiner (Ans. 4).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-47 as being unpatentable
because Powers fails to teach a hierarchical layer of rules?

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 have a hierarchy (e.g., “wherein
said plurality of procedural rules is organized into hierarchical layers”).
2

1
The remaining dependent claims are all rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combination of Powers, Wald, and Sanz-Pastor 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
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.” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 174 (1991).
Appeal 2009-012914
Application 10/877,515

4
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. 2-4). Appellant‟s Specification states that rules are organized
in layers. (Spec. 9). Appellant‟s Specification states that layers can be
arranged in a hierarchy. (Spec. 9). Appellant‟s Specification states that
hierarchies include parent-child or tree-leaf relationships. (Spec. 9). 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. 9-10). Appellant provides three examples of hierarchical
layers at page 10 of the Specification in Paragraph [0065].
While we agree with the Examiner that the symbols of Powers are
rules and that there are layers of such rules (levels), we do not agree that the
layers in Powers are hierarchical as required by the claims. The Examiner‟s
rejection consists of quotes from the claim each followed by a quote and
citation to a reference without further explanation of why the cited portion of
the reference teaches the claimed feature.
3
While this can be adequate where
the reference and claim share the same terminology or the correspondence
between different terms is readily recognized, it is not adequate where, as
here, the terms differ and correspondence is not readily apparent. While the
Examiner adequately explains why the symbols of Powers are rules (see
pages 29-30 of the Answer), the Examiner‟s explanation as to why a layer in
Powers is hierarchical is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness and further explanation is required

3
See, e.g., Examiner‟s Final Rejection at page 4.
Appeal 2009-012914
Application 10/877,515

5
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-47 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, claims 1-47 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner‟s rejections of claims 1-47 are reversed.

REVERSED

ELD