Ex Parte Stone

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 25, 2003

09100792 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 25, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JEREMY D. STONE
_____________
Appeal No. 2002-0187
Application No. 09/100,792
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 36.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for
simulating a computer-controlled unit in a simulated environment
in which first and second portions of the simulation are updated
Appeal No. 2002-0187
Application No. 09/100,792
2
at first and second rates. The second rate is varied in response
to changes in the tactical condition of the computer-controlled
unit.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method for simulating a subject computer-controlled
unit in a simulated environment having at least one other
unit within the environment, the method comprising:
periodically determining a tactical condition relating
to the subject unit;
updating a first portion of the simulation at a first
rate;
updating a second portion of the simulation at a second
rate; and
varying the second rate in response to changes in the
tactical condition.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
McManus, “A concurrent distributed system for aircraft tactical
decision generation,” Proceedings of the IEEE/AIAA/NASA Digital
Avionics Systems Conference, pp. 505-12 (1990).
Noser et al. (Noser), “Navigation for Digital Actors Based on
Synthetic Vision, Memory, and Learning,” Computer & Graphics,
(19)1, pp. 7-19 (January/February 1995).
Trias et al. (Trias), “Decision Networks for Integrating the
Behaviors of Virtual Agents and Avatars,” Proceedings of the IEEE
Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, pp. 156-62
(1996).
Appeal No. 2002-0187
Application No. 09/100,792
3
Claims 1 through 9, 11 through 25 and 27 through 36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
McManus in view of Noser.
Claims 10 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over McManus in view of Noser and Trias.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 13 and 15)
and the answer (paper number 14) for the respective positions of
the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
36.
We agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, page 4)
concerning the teachings of McManus. The two aircraft in the
simulator disclosed by McManus are controlled in parallel via two
parallel sets of programs (Figure 2; pages 507 and 508). The
examiner states (answer, page 4) that “it is not clear that these
[aircraft] can or do operate at different rates.” In the absence
of any disclosure in McManus directed to operation rates of the
two aircraft, we hereby decline to speculate as to the operation
rates of the two aircraft. We likewise agree with the examiner’s
findings (answer, page 4) concerning the variable attention rate
Appeal No. 2002-0187
Application No. 09/100,792
4
teachings of the digital actor in Noser (pages 7 and 14). In
view of the teachings of these publications, the examiner
concludes (answer, pages 4 and 5) that:
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art at the time of the applicant’s invention to
incorporate more complex autonomous behavior, as is
seen in Noser et al., as adversarial aircraft in the
system of McManus. McManus teaches training against an
“automated opponent” (pg. 505, col. 1, third
paragraph). Providing automated units with more
complex and believable behavior characteristics is a
well-known problem in the warfare simulation arts (for
example, see the cited reference Estvanik, pg. 26,
first paragraph). Providing autonomous units with more
human-like responses would allow for simulators to be
used to develop more realistic pilot training.
Appellant argues (brief, page 8) that “[n]othing in Noser
indicates that changes in Noser’s attention rate are anything
other than arbitrary decisions, made independently of any
condition being simulated.” We agree. We additionally agree
with appellant’s argument (brief, page 8) that:
McManus has the same deficiency. Different units
and different parts of the simulation are performed
concurrently. These might or might not “operate at
different rates,” as argued by the Examiner. But,
McManus does not teach or suggest that any of these
rates can be “varying” as required by claim 1. And
McManus certainly has no teaching or suggestion that
simulation rates might vary “in response to changes in
the tactical condition” of the units being simulated.
Therefore, claim 1 distinguishes in a patentable manner
from any combination of McManus with Noser.
Appeal No. 2002-0187
Application No. 09/100,792
5
A review of the record does not reveal where in the record
the examiner found the reasoning for combining the teachings of
McManus and Noser. The factual question of motivation should be
resolved based on evidence of record, and not on the subjective
belief and unknown authority expressed by the examiner. In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343-44, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002). Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 9,
11 through 25 and 27 through 36 is reversed because of
appellant’s arguments supra and the argument (reply brief, page
3) that “it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the
relevant art to have applied the autonomous actor and obstacle
avoidance teachings of Noser et al. to an air combat simulator
that uses separate situation assessment knowledge sources, with
relative geometry data and other aircraft state data, to
periodically determine a tactical condition relating to target
aircraft as taught by McManus.”
The obviousness rejection of claims 10 and 26 is reversed
because the teachings of Trias fail to cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of McManus and Noser.
Appeal No. 2002-0187
Application No. 09/100,792
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED

)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 2002-0187
Application No. 09/100,792
7
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
ATTORNEYS FOR MICROSOFT
1001 G STREET, N.W. - 11TH ST.
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4597