Appeal No. 2002-0187
Application No. 09/100,792
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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007