Ex Parte Bye et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2018

13464298 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/464,298 05/04/2012
89953 7590
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
11/29/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles T. Bye
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.
H0033603 8680
EXAMINER
NGON,RICKY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2862
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2018 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
docket@fogglaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHARLES T. BYE, FAN LIU, and
KENNETH STEVEN MORGAN
Appeal2018-000027
Application 13/464,298
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
rejection of claims 11-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 In this Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed May 4, 2012 ("Spec."),
the Final Office Action dated Feb. 19, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed July 19, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated July 31,
2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 29, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Honeywell International Inc. is identified in the Appeal Brief as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000027
Application 13/464,298
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to an attitude estimator system that includes a
navigation system to output navigation data, a Kalman filter to output
Kalman filter feedback to the navigation system, and a form observations
module executable by a processor. Spec. ,r 4. According to the
Specification, existing inertial navigation systems contain inertial sensors of
both high and low performance gyroscopes, as well as high and low
performance accelerometers in which the low performance gyroscopes and
accelerometer sense axes are co-aligned parallel to the force of gravity in
operation. Id. ,r 2. Performance of the navigation algorithms and the
Kalman filter are degraded when the low performance accelerometer is tilted
and the low performance sense axis is no longer optimally aligned parallel to
the force of gravity, degrading the estimate of heading. Id. ,r,r 2, 3.
Claim 11 is illustrative, and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief ( emphasis added):
11. A method to improve performance of a navigation system
communicatively coupled to a first high performance
accelerometer and a first high performance gyroscope aligned
to a first sensor-frame-level axis, a second high performance
accelerometer and a second gyroscope aligned to a second
sensor-frame-level axis, and a third low performance
accelerometer and a third low performance gyroscope aligned
to a third sensor frame axis, the method comprising:
computing at least one observation based on input to a form
observations module from at least one of the first high
performance gyroscope, the first high performance
accelerometer, and the second high performance accelerometer;
outputting the at least one observation to a Kalman filter from
the form observations module;
2
Appeal2018-000027
Application 13/464,298
inputting observations formed in the form observations module
at a module in the Kalman filter to rotate an error into a sensor-
frame;
rotating the observation into the sensor-frame;
zeroing selected gains associated with at least one of the third
low performance accelerometer and the third low performance
gyroscope at a compute Kalman gains module in the Kalman
filter; and
outputting error corrections as Kalman filter feedback from the
Kalman filter to the navigation system, wherein the navigation
system updates a navigation solution based on the Kalman filter
feedback.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
Claim 16 is also independent and similar to claim 1, but recites:
[a] program product for improving performance of a
navigation system ... the program-product comprising a non-
transitory processor-readable medium on which program
instructions are embodied, wherein the program instructions are
operable, when executed by at least one processor included in
an attitude estimator system communicatively coupled to the
navigation system, to cause the attitude estimator system to
execute the same steps of claim 11.
Id. at 13-14.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner maintains and Appellants appeal the rejection of
claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory
subject matter. Ans. 2; Appeal Br. 5-10; Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2018-000027
Application 13/464,298
ANALYSIS
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)
identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject
matter is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
According to Alice step one, "[ w ]e must first determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept," such as an
abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
In that regard, the Examiner determines that the claims are directed to
an abstract idea since they are directed to a series of computational steps.
Final Act. 2.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in applying the first step
to conclude that claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 6-7.
According to Appellants,
the characterization of the claims as either "data manipulations
and analysis" or "steps for deriving the error corrections" is
overly broad and reads a majority of the limitations out of the
claim.
Id. at 6. Instead, Appellants contend that the claims are "directed to a
specific method for improving the performance of a navigation system" and
that "features recited in claim 11 improve the overall accuracy of the
navigation solution of the navigation system." Id. at 6-7. Appellants note
that the use of a combination of high performance and low performance
gyroscopes and accelerometers in prior art navigation systems "does not
account for errors contributed by the low performance sensors." Id. at 6.
Appellants conclude that "[ c ]laim 11 does not merely add generic
components to a mathematical equation, but instead is directed to a specific
4
Appeal2018-000027
Application 13/464,298
implementation of a solution to a problem in the technological field of
navigation." Id. at 7. Appellants rely on these same arguments for claims
12-20. Id. at 10.
The "directed to" inquiry applies a stage-one filter to the claims
which, when considered in light of the Specification, is based on whether
"their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter." Internet
Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
see also Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir.
2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
("inquiring into 'the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art."'
(Citation omitted)).
"In determining the eligibility of respondents' claimed process for
patent protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole."
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981). The question is whether the
claims as a whole "focus on a specific means or method that improves the
relevant technology" or are "directed to a result or effect that itself is the
abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." McRO,
Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
According to Enfish, the question is "whether the focus of the claims
is on [a] specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or,
instead, on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers
are invoked merely as a tool." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. The court
found in that case that the "plain focus of the claims" was on "an
improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks
for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity." Id. at 1336.
5
Appeal2018-000027
Application 13/464,298
Here, claim 11 sets forth a method to improve the performance of a
navigation system "communicatively coupled" to instrumentation having a
particular sensor-frame-level axial alignment comprising the steps of
computing, inputting, and outputting at least one observation in addition to
the steps of "rotating the observation into the sensor-frame" and "zeroing
selected gains associated with at least one of the third low performance
accelerometer and the third low performance gyroscope at a compute
Kalman gains module in the Kalman filter." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims
Appendix). The Examiner finds that claim 11, as a whole, is "similar to
what the Court found as an abstract idea for solving navigation equations."
Ans. 2-3 (citing Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed.
Cir. 2017). Specifically, the Examiner finds that "the system appears to be
an arrangement of generic data-gathering elements designed to feed
orientation data into navigation equations" and, particularly, "determining
error corrections [values] from a Kalman filter." Id. at 3.
Appellants agree that the claimed subject matter is similar to that
involved in Thales, which related to an improvement in sensor technology.
Reply Br. 2. Appellants quote the conclusion in Thales that the subject
matter claimed was not directed to an abstract idea:
We hold that the '159 patent claims at issue in this appeal
are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims specify a
particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular
method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more
accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on
a moving platform.
Thales, 850 F.3d at 1349. Appellants assert that the instant claims likewise
are not directed to an abstract idea because:
6
Appeal2018-000027
Application 13/464,298
the claims of the present application specify a particular method
of using the data from sensors arranged in a particular
configuration to more accurately determine the navigation
solution of the navigation system. In particular, the claims of
the present application include an arrangement of high and low
performance sensors in a particular arrangement.
Reply Br. 4.
Because the Examiner determines that the claimed subject matter is
similar to that in Thales and does not distinguish the analysis of the claims in
Thales from Appellants' claims, we find persuasive Appellants' argument
that the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is in error. In Thales,
our reviewing court determined that:
[ t ]he mathematical equations are a consequence of the
arrangement of the sensors and the unconventional choice of
reference frame in order to calculate position and orientation.
Far from claiming the equations themselves, the claims seek to
protect only the application of physics to the unconventional
configuration of sensors as disclosed.
Thales, 850 F.3d at 1349. 3 Appellants assert (Reply Br. 4) that their claims
likewise seek to protect an arrangement of sensors rather than the data
gathering and manipulation steps themselves.
Appellants also assert that the technical improvement to the field of
navigation is improved overall accuracy, like the subject matter of Thales.
Reply Br. 5---6. Appellants specifically identify the features responsible for
the improvement in navigation as the steps of:
rotating navigation frame velocity observation from the form
velocity observation 198 into at least one or more axis of the
3 Cf Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981) (a mathematical equation
itself is not patent-eligible subject matter even if limited to a particular
technological environment); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589 (1978);
Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972).
7
Appeal2018-000027
Application 13/464,298
sensor-frame (Xsf, Ysf, Zsf) and then zeroing select Kalman filter
gains, the sensitivity to one or more of the less accurate
accelerometer 153, gyroscope 162, and gyroscope 163 is
removed and the overall accuracy of the navigation solution is
improved.
Id. ( quoting Spec. ,r 39).
We note that Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding (Ans.
4--5) that the steps of rotating the observation and zeroing selected gains
required by claim 11 constitute data manipulation steps that obtain a result
and determine an error correction value with reduced contribution of the low
performance sensors. Should prosecution continue in this application,
clarifying "selected gains" recited in independent claims 11 and 16 would be
helpful to determine which gains are selected to be zero and the scope of
gains computed for each of "the third low performance accelerometer and
the third low performance gyroscope" recited in the claims. According to
the Specification, "[ t ]he gains that are selected to be zero are dependent on
the combination of high quality and low quality gyroscopes and
accelerometers." Spec. ,r 37.
Because we determine that the Examiner erred in step one of the
analysis, we need not reach step two of the Alice framework, which is "a
search for an 'inventive concept' - i.e., an element or combination of
elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)); see Thales, 850 F.3d at 1349 (explaining that
the court need not proceed to step two where the claims are not directed to
an abstract idea).
8
Appeal2018-000027
Application 13/464,298
We have fully considered the positions of both Appellants and the
Examiner. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded as to error in the
rejection of claims 11-20.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting
claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory
subject matter.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
9