Ex Parte Petri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2018

13524173 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/524, 173 06/15/2012
128836 7590 12/21/2018
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tyler Junichi Petri
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.
5013899.013US 1 6089
EXAMINER
NIMOX, RAYMOND LONDALE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 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):
patentadmin@Boeing.com
ipdocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TYLER JUNICHI PETRI,
DANIEL J. FOGARTY, DAVID HARDING JONES,
ALLISON MORAN, and KEVIN NICHOLAS KING
Appeal 2018-002 861
Application 13/524, 173
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-18, 20-22, 24, and 25.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed June 15, 2012
("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated May 4, 2017 ("Final Act."), the
Appeal Brief filed September 15, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's
Answer dated November 27, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed
January 25, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Boeing Company.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002861
Application 13/524, 173
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to a system, a
method, and a computer-readable storage medium for integrating failure data
for different failure analysis layouts. Spec. 2, 11. 20-22. Claim 1,
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, is
illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A system for integrating failure data for different failure
analysis layouts, the system comprising:
a complex system including a plurality of systems,
wherein the complex system is an aircraft; and
a processor and a memory storing executable instructions
that, in response to execution by the processor, implement at
least:
a data validator configured to receive and validate failure
analysis data for the complex system including the plurality of
systems, wherein the data validator is configured to receive
failure data from a failing complex system equipped with one
or more sensors or embedded systems configured to transmit a
signal in the event it or one of its systems experiences a failure,
wherein the failure analysis data includes failure
data and design data, the failure data identifying a failure
of one or more of the plurality of systems that are thereby
one or more failed systems, and the design data
describing the aircraft and possible failures of at least
some of its systems, the design data including one or
more schematic diagrams describing physical
relationships between the aircraft and its systems, the
aircraft being dividable into a plurality of physically-
distinct zones,
wherein the data validator being configured to
validate the failure analysis data includes being
configured to perform one or more consistency checks
between the failure data and the design data to thereby
2
Appeal2018-002861
Application 13/524, 173
integrate the failure data for a plurality of different failure
analysis layouts, and
wherein the data validator is configured to perform
failure analyses including at least a rotorburst analysis, of
the failure one or more of the plurality of systems within
a particular zone that may have a cascading effect related
to a number of systems in the same zone, to check if a
number of the failed systems are physically located in the
same zone; and
a layout engine coupled to the data validator and
configured to selectively generate at least one of the plurality of
different layouts of the failure analysis data including at least a
layout according to a flight deck layout model that includes a
graphical representation of a flight deck illustrated by schematic
representations reflecting system controls that is displayable in
a display, the layout graphically identifying one or more failed
systems directly on their respective schematic representations
reflecting system controls.
Appeal Br. 11-12 (Claims App.).
Independent claim 8 recites a method, independent claim 16 recites a
computer-readable storage medium, and each includes limitations similar to
those recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 14, 16-17.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-
18, 20-22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention
is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly
more. Final Act. 7; Ans. 2.
After review of the cited evidence in light of the Appellants' and the
Examiner's opposing positions, we determine that Appellants have not
identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. Accordingly, we
3
Appeal2018-002861
Application 13/524, 173
affirm the rejection for the reasons set forth below, in the Final Office
Action, and in the Examiner's Answer.
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-18, 20-
22, 24, and 25 as a group. Appeal Br. 5-10. We therefore limit our
discussion to claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 16, as well as the claims
depending from claims 1, 8, and 16 will stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
A two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject
matter is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012), and further explained in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). The first step requires determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such
as an abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at
7 6-77). The second step requires examining "the elements of the claim to
determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to
'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application."
573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72, 79).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's finding that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea is legally erroneous. Appeal Br. 7. Specifically,
Appellants argue that the Examiner's finding that the claims are directed to
the abstract idea of integration of failure data for different failure analysis
layouts ignores the selective generation of at least one of a plurality of
different layouts including the very specific flight deck layout. Id.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's finding that the claims are
directed to the abstract idea of integration of failure data for different failure
4
Appeal2018-002861
Application 13/524, 173
analysis layouts ignores that the claimed invention is specific to an aircraft,
and that the failure data being integrated and presented in the different
layout(s) is drawn from a failing complex system (aircraft) equipped with
sensor( s) or embedded system( s) that transmit a signal in the event of a
failure. Id. at 8.
Appellants appear to be arguing that the Examiner ignores claim 1 's
"layout engine coupled to the data validator and configured to selectively
generate at least one of the plurality of different layouts of the failure
analysis data including at least a layout according to a flight deck layout
model" recitation. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner
has adequately explained why the recitations of the claims as a whole,
including the "selective[] generat[ion ]" recitation, are directed to an abstract
idea that our reviewing court has previously deemed patent-ineligible. See
Final Act. 7-8. Specifically, the Examiner determined that the claims are
directed to the abstract idea of collecting information (i.e., memory
executable instructions that, in response to execution by a processor,
implement a data validator configured to receive and validate failure
analysis data), analyzing it (i.e., the data validator is configured to perform
failure analyses), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis
(i.e., a layout engine configured to selectively generate a layout of the failure
analysis data including a graphical representation of a flight deck identifying
one or more failed systems). Final Act. 7-8 ( citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC
v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Additionally, the Examiner does not ignore, but expressly references
that claim 1 's complex system is limited to an aircraft. Final Act. 7-8.
Moreover, even if claim 1 is specific to an aircraft, "limiting the claims to
5
Appeal2018-002861
Application 13/524, 173
the particular technological environment ... is, without more, insufficient to
transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their
core." Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358).
Appellants argue that the claims are similar to those found patent
eligible in Trading Technologies Int'!, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App'x 1001
(Fed. Cir. 2017) because the claims "solve[] a problem [ofJ prior graphical
user interface devices." Appeal Br. 8.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. In Trading Technologies, the
court found the claims were directed to a specific improvement in the way
computers operate, i.e., improvements in existing graphical user interface
devices, and "require a specific, structured graphical user interface paired
with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user
interface's structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified
problem in the prior state of the art." Trading Techs., 675 F. App'x at 1004.
On this record, Appellants have not sufficiently explained how the claimed
subject matter improves computer-related technology, i.e., existing graphical
user interface devices, by allowing a computer to perform a function not
previously performable by a computer. Nor do Appellants' claims require a
specific, structured graphical user interface, but, instead, focus on tasks for
which computers are invoked merely as a tool:
a processor and a memory storing executable instructions that,
in response to execution by the processor implement at least: a
data validator configured to receive and validate failure analysis
data ... from a failing complex system equipped with one or
more sensors ... configured to transmit a signal in the event it
or one of its systems experiences a failure.
Further, Appellants do not dispute or direct us to sufficient factual
evidence in the Specification that the "layout engine" is anything other than
6
Appeal2018-002861
Application 13/524, 173
a "non-specific, generic computer function of displaying the resulted data
from the analysis." Compare Ans. 6, with Reply Br. 2-3; see also Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2357 ("[C]laims, which merely require generic computer
implementation, fail to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention.").
Appellants argue that the Examiner's findings that the claims do not
provide "significantly more" is legally erroneous. Appeal Br. 9.
Specifically Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to provide any
explanation or rationale to support the finding that the claims do not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception. Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error because
they fail to meaningfully address or identify error in the Examiner's
findings. The Examiner finds that the additional claim elements, i.e., the
physical elements (a complex system (aircraft), a processor and memory
storing executable instructions, a data validator, and a layout engine coupled
to the data validator) are generic computer components and conventional
computer implementation, i.e., conventional data acquisition/output
components/steps to simply acquire/output data, for the abstract idea. See
Ans. 4--5; see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 ("[T]he mere recitation of a
generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention").
We have carefully considered Appellants' arguments, but we are not
persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-18, 20-
22, 24, and 25.
7
Appeal2018-002861
Application 13/524, 173
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-18, 20-22, 24, and 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).
AFFIRMED
8