Ex Parte Conkright et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 8, 201310328254 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte GARY W. CONKRIGHT, JOSEPH HASIEWICZ JR., and JAMES PAUL HERZOG ____________________ Appeal 2010-010747 Application 10/328,254 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before DAVID M. KOHUT, ERIC B. CHEN, and PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010747 Application 10/328,254 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim The claimed subject matter relates to remote analysis systems for equipment condition monitoring (Abs.). Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1. A wide-area network enabled equipment condition monitoring system for remotely located machines and processes, comprising: a data acquisition device operable at a remote site to collect sensor signals indicative of operation of at least one machine at the remote site; a communications network for conveying the collected signals; and an analysis site comprising: a communications device for asynchronously receiving the collected signals from the communications network, an analysis server operable at the analysis site and responsive to multivariate snapshots comprised of the collected signals for condition monitoring of the at least one machine by using an empirical model to generate estimates of at least one variable from the collected signals reflecting the operation of the at least one machine, each such estimate based on one said multivariate snapshot and based on reference observations each comprising a snapshot representative of normal operation of the at least one machine, said analysis server further having a decision engine separate from the empirical model for comparing Appeal 2010-010747 Application 10/328,254 3 the estimates to corresponding values from the collected signals for determining if a deviation from normal operation exists. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Johnson Ward US 6,553,336 B1 US 6,571,186 B1 Apr. 22, 2003 May 27, 2003 Lehoczky, “Real-Time Queueing Network Theory,” IEEE Xplore (1997). Singer, “A Pattern-Recognition-Based, Fault-Tolerant Monitoring and Diagnostic Technique,” Argonne National Laboratory (1997). Bertsimas, “Estimation of Time-Varying Parameters in Statistical Models: an Optimization Approach,” ACM Press (1997). Rejections The Examiner made the following rejections1: Claims 1, 2, 5, and 9–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson and Lehoczky (Ans. 4–7). Claims 14–20, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson, Ward, and Lehoczky (Ans. 7–12). Claims 3 and 6–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson, Lehoczky, and Singer (Ans. 12–14). Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson, Lehoczky, and Bertsimas (Ans. 14–15). 1 The rejections stated on pages 18–25 of the Examiner’s Answer appear to be inadvertent duplications of the rejections previously stated on pages 10– 17 of the Answer. This duplication is harmless error. Appeal 2010-010747 Application 10/328,254 4 Claims 22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson, Ward, Lehoczky, and Singer (Ans. 15–16). Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson, Ward, Lehoczky, and Bertsimas (Ans. 17). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments in both the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. Rather than exhaustively repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner. For ease of reference, we adopt the Examiner’s numerical identification of Appellants’ specific contentions labeled “I” through “XXI” (Ans. 25–27) in our discussion. A. Contentions I–IV, VII, X, and XV Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Johnson and Lehoczky discloses or suggests: I. “multivariate snapshots comprised of the collected signals for condition monitoring,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 17–19; Reply Br. 12– 14); II. “an empirical model to generate estimates of at least one variable from the collected signals reflecting the operation of the at least one machine,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 19–21; Reply Br. 14–15); III. “estimates of at least one variable from the collected signals reflecting the operation of the at least one machine,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 21–23; Reply Br. 16); Appeal 2010-010747 Application 10/328,254 5 IV. “each such estimate based on one said multivariate snapshot and base on reference observations each comprising a snapshot representative of normal operation of the at least one machine,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 23–24; Reply Br. 16–17); VII. “a device operating database for storing reference observations corresponding to the empirical model of the at least one machine,” as recited in claim 2 (App. Br. 26–27; Reply Br. 16–17); X. “an estimation engine … to generate estimates for at least one variable reflecting the operation of the monitored asset,” as recited in claim 14 (App. Br. 31–34; Reply Br. 18); and XV. “said estimation engine uses an empirical model of normal operation of the monitored asset,” as recited in claim 20 (App. Br. 36; Reply Br. 19). For each of these contentions, Appellants’ argument is predicated on a common line of reasoning that the Examiner erred in applying Lehoczky because the claims require that certain operations be performed on “collected real-world data from a system or process that can be used to indicate the actual, real-world condition of the monitored machine or process” (App. Br. 17) while “Lehoczky merely discloses simulated data” (Id.). We are not persuaded by this argument because it attacks Lehoczky individually when the Examiner has, in fact, relied on the combination of Johnson and Lehoczky for the rejection of all claims, either alone or in combination with other cited art. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appeal 2010-010747 Application 10/328,254 6 We find that Johnson discloses remote monitoring of property and equipment that detects trends in monitored data to detect when alarm conditions have been met (Johnson, col. 15, ll. 54–59). We further find that Lehoczky discloses a model for scheduling tasks moving through a network of processing nodes (Lehoczky, Abs.) and discloses prediction of the lead- time distribution of tasks at a node by comparing a theoretical mathematically generated curve to a set of snapshots of simulated empirical data points (id., p. 62, left column). The mere fact that Lehoczky describes application of its methodology to simulated data does not diminish the relevance of its teachings. Specifically, we conclude that application of the methodology taught by Lehoczky to the real-world data collected by Johnson (see, e.g., Johnson, col. 4, ll. 19–38) amounts to “the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). For each of contentions I–IV, VII, X, and XV we are accordingly not persuaded that the Examiner has erred. Contentions XI, XVI, and XVII Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Johnson and Lehoczky discloses or suggests: XI. “a differencing module for creating residuals representing a comparison of the estimates and actual values,” as recited in claim 14 (App. Br. 32; Reply Br. 18); Appeal 2010-010747 Application 10/328,254 7 XVI. “wherein the alert engine generates a message when a deviation is detected between the generated estimates and corresponding sensor data,” as recited in claim 23 (App. Br. 36–37; Reply Br. 20); and XVII. “a logical results table intermediate said estimation engine and said alert engine for storing estimates and other results from said estimation engine independent from processing of the estimates and other results by said alert engine, to facilitate asynchronous arrival of data,” as recited in claim 25 (App. Br. 37–38) In contrast with Appellants’ assertion (App. Br. 32), we agree with the Examiner that Lehoczky discloses calculation of estimates because implementation of Lehoczky’s empirical cumulative function to establish a model or vector results in a mathematical estimation (Ans. 35; see also id. 31). Because Lehoczky teaches that a comparison is made between the estimated and actual values (Lehoczky, p. 62, left column), we conclude that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to calculate differences between the estimated and actual values in the form of residuals, to generate alerts as taught by Johnson when deviations are detected, and to store such estimates and residuals in the database taught by Johnson (Johnson, col. 17, l. 12 – col. 18, l. 46). For each of contentions XI, XVI, and XVII we are accordingly not persuaded that the Examiner has erred. Contentions V, VIII, and XII Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Johnson and Lehoczky discloses or suggests: Appeal 2010-010747 Application 10/328,254 8 V. “said analysis server further having a decision engine separate from the empirical model for comparing the estimates to corresponding values from the collected signals for determining if a deviation from normal operation exists,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 25–26; see also Reply Br. 2–6); VIII. “said analysis server is configured to generate the estimates by processing the snapshots out of chronological order and the decision engine analyzes comparisons between the estimates and values from the collected signals in chronological order to determine whether a deviation exists,” as recited in claim 5 (App. Br. 27–28); and XII. “an alert engine separate from the estimation engine for determining if a deviation from normal operation exists and generating messages indicative of asset condition, responsive to the generated estimates, wherein the alert engine is configured to determine if a deviation exists independently of when the estimates and residuals are calculated by the estimation engine,” as recited in claim 14 (App. Br. 33–34). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that “Lehoczky discloses that subsequent to deriving an empirical model estimation of the snapshot data, a comparison is accomplished applicable to the predicted and estimated distributions” and that “Lehoczky expressly discloses in considering the actual snapshot values and the empirical model estimation of the snapshot values that a decision regarding [] the operation of the machine is determined” (Ans. 32, citing Lehoczky, p. 62). Such findings reasonably suggest a “decision engine” for performing the steps recited in the claims. We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Lehoczky shows that this aforementioned decision analysis is made separately from, or rather is not Appeal 2010-010747 Application 10/328,254 9 performed directly by, the empirical model” (id.) so that Lehoczky reasonably suggests separation of the decision engine (or alert engine) and empirical model (or estimation engine) to one of skill in the art. Appellants dispute the Examiner’s construction of “separate” as being satisfied by “logical separation” (see Ans. 32) when data are received asynchronously since, in the absence of the claimed separation, “the results of the monitoring system may not be conclusive because data may be processed out of order” (Reply Br. 5). We are not persuaded by this argument. During patent examination, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Appellants stress that asynchronous receipt of data “is not a concern for generating the estimated values because this process is not time dependent” while “[t]he alert engine … is time dependent” (Reply Br. 2). But Appellants have not articulated sufficiently compelling reasons why the logical separation identified by the Examiner as suggested by Lehoczky does not accommodate this difference in time dependence. For each of contentions V, VIII, and XII, we are accordingly not persuaded that the Examiner has erred. Contentions IX and XIV Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Johnson, Lehoczky, and Ward discloses or suggests: IX. “a data store operable … to accumulate received sensor data in separate logical bins for each monitored asset to which the sensor data corresponds” and “a batching module for evaluating whether a condition has Appeal 2010-010747 Application 10/328,254 10 been met regarding sensor data accumulated in a bin for a monitored asset,” as recited in claim 14 (App. Br. 30–31; Rep. Br. 17–18); and XIV. each of the conditions recited in claims 15–19 for processing the data in the bins (App. Br. 34–35; Reply Br. 19). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Ward teaches time intervals that are produced from the time interval generator [and that] these time intervals are subsequently monitored and represented in bins separated by the occurrences of the time intervals” (Ans. 34, citing Ward, col. 4, ll. 21–31). Appellants’ assertion that “[f]undamentally, the word [‘]bin[’] is used to describe a different concept than that used in the cited reference” (App. Br. 31; see also id. 35) attacks Ward individually by focusing too narrowly on the specific application of Ward’s binning concept. Fig. 5 of the Specification illustrates bins 511 as part of an arrangement used to “organize the incoming data to make for efficient processing” (Spec., p. 23, l. 14). Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of “bin” consistent with the Specification, we thus instead agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that “the combination of Johnson, Ward, and Lehoczky [renders obvious] separate logical bins for each monitored asset to which sensor data corresponds, where the monitored asset is not [a] time interval, but rather a monitored machine” (Ans. 34). For each of contentions IX and XIV, we are accordingly not persuaded that the Examiner has erred. Contentions VI, XIII, XVIII–XXI Appeal 2010-010747 Application 10/328,254 11 Appellants contend that: VI. each of claims 2, 5, and 9–13 is patentable because it depends from claim 1 (App. Br. 26); XIII. each of claims 15–20, 23, and 25 is patentable because it depends from claim 14 (App. Br. 34); XVIII. each of claims 3 and 6–8 is patentable because it depends from claim 1 (App. Br. 38); XIX. claim 4 is patentable because it depends from claim 1 (App. Br. 38–39); XX. each of claims 22 and 24 is patentable because it depends from claim 14 (App. Br. 39); and XXI. claim 21 is patentable because it depends from claim 14 (App. Br. 40, 41). Each of these contentions relies on the patentability of an underlying claim without presenting additional arguments to establish separate patentability. Since we are not persuaded of error by the Examiner with respect to such underlying claims, we are similarly not persuaded that the Examiner has erred with respect to each of contentions VI, XIII, and XVIII– XXI. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson and Lehoczky, alone or in combination with other references. Appeal 2010-010747 Application 10/328,254 12 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–25 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation