Ex Parte Cogswell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2018

11756064 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/756,064 05/31/2007
60476 7590 04/24/2018
PA TENT DOCKET DEPARTMENT
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas A. Cogswell
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.
07-0427 (24691-136) 1208
EXAMINER
GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2018 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):
USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS A. COGSWELL and CHAD WARRINGTON 1
Appeal2017-001574
Application 11/756,064
Technology Center 3600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3, 6 through 8, 12 through 14, 16, 17,
and 20 through 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-001574
Application 11/756,064
INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed invention is directed to interfacing computer
modeled design and manufacture data from a Manufacturing Process
Planning (MPP) system to peripheral computer systems, via an integration
server interface, that resolves data transfer format conflicts between the MPP
system and the peripheral systems. Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of
the invention and reproduced below.
1. A method for distributing electronic data
comprising model-based data of a product from a
manufacturing process planning (MPP) system in a service
oriented architecture to a manufacturing execution system
separately supplied from the MPP system, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, at an integration server, a shop order creation
request for manufacture of the product over the service
oriented architecture;
requesting, with the integration server, a new shop
order instance from the MPP system for the shop order
creation request;
receiving, at the integration server, the new shop order
instance from the MPP system in a first model-based data
arrangement, the new shop order instance including data for
manufacturing the product, the first model-based data
arrangement being a model-based data input and output
format recognized by the MPP system and not recognized by
the manufacturing execution system;
adapting, by the integration server using an application
programming interface (API), the new shop order instance
from the first model-based data arrangement into a second
data arrangement that includes a plurality of work instructions
for use on a shop floor, wherein the second data arrangement
is compatible with the manufacturing execution system and
not compatible with the MPP system;
supplying, with the integration server, the new shop
order instance to the manufacturing execution system in the
2
Appeal2017-001574
Application 11/756,064
second data arrangement to commence physical manufacture
of the product using the work instructions from the new shop
order instance;
after the physical manufacture of the product has
commenced, receiving, by the integration server, a revision to
one of the work instructions in the new shop order instance,
the revision being received in a third data arrangement;
adapting, by the integration server, the revision from
the third arrangement to the first model-based arrangement;
and requesting, by the integration server, a revised shop order
instance from the MPP system based on the revision.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 6 through 8, 12 through 14, 16,
17, and 20 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 9-10.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 6 through 8, 12 through 14, 16,
17, and 20 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 being unpatentable over
Landers (US 2006/0106485 Al, published May 18, 2006), Jayaram (US
2002/0120920 Al, published Aug. 29, 2002) and Beasley (US 4,827,423,
issued May 2, 1989). Final Act. 11-38.
The Examiner has rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 being
unpatentable over Landers, Jayaram, Beasley, and Mifsud (US
2007 /0256391 Al, published Nov. 8, 2007).
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 22,
2016, Reply Brief filed November 9, 2016, Final Office Action mailed July
17, 2015, Appellants' Specification submitted May 31, 2007, and the
Examiner's Answer mailed September 9, 2016.
3
Appeal2017-001574
Application 11/756,064
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in§ 101 of the Patent Act,
which recites:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
There are, however, three judicially created exceptions to the broad
categories of patent-eligible subject matter in § 101: laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134
S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012). Although an abstract idea, itself, is patent-
ineligible, an application of the abstract idea may be patent-eligible. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355. Thus, we must consider "the elements of each claim both
individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the
additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78-80). The claim must contain
elements or a combination of elements that are "'sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[abstract idea] itself."' Id. ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
The Supreme Court sets forth a two-part "framework for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts." Id. at 2355.
First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to
one of those patent-ineligible concepts. [Mayo, 566 U.S. at 76-
4
Appeal2017-001574
Application 11/756,064
Id.
77]. If so, we then ask, "[ w ]hat else is there in the claims
before us?" Id., at [77-78]. To answer that question, we
consider the elements of each claim both individually and "as
an ordered combination" to determine whether the additional
elements "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-
eligible application. Id., at [77-78]. We have described step
two of this analysis as 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." Id., at [71-
73].
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's determination that the claims are directed to an abstract concept.
However, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue on pages 6 through 8 of the Appeal Brief and pages
2 through 4 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner has not established the
claims are directed to an abstract idea. Appellants argue that while
independent claims 1, 12, and 20 are not directed to the abstract idea of
"organizing human activities" as found by the Examiner, but rather the
claims recites steps of adapting a shop order from a first model based data to
a second arrangement that is compatible with a manufacturing execution
system. App. Br. 7. Further, Appellants assert the claims recite
manufacturing a product. App. Br. 7.
The Examiner has found that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea stating the claims are directed to the abstract idea of organizing human
5
Appeal2017-001574
Application 11/756,064
activities (specifically, "concepts relating to managing relationships or
transactions between people") and the additional elements are merely
generic computer instructions/structure or use of the computer to implement
the idea. Final Act., 9, Answer 39--40 (stating that the steps of receiving a
shop order creation of a request, requesting a new shop order instance, and
supplying the new shop order instance to the manufacturing execution
system, are all directed to organizing human activity). Additionally, the
Examiner equates the claims to the abstract concept of using categories to
organize and transmit data. Answer 3 8 ( considering the claim to recite
categories such as first and second model-based data arrangements to store
information and supply shop order instances).
We have reviewed independent claims 1, 12, and 20 and do not find
that the Examiner has sufficiently shown that the claims recite an abstract
idea of either organizing human activities (specifically, "concepts relating to
managing relationships or transactions between people") or using categories
to organize and transmit data. As discussed above, Appellants argue the
claims recite adapting a shop order from a first model based data to a second
arrangement, the Examiner has not shown how this feature is organizing
human activities (specifically, "concepts relating to managing relationships
or transactions between people"), rather the limitation of each of the claims
recites that the data model based data from a manufacturing process
planning system, is adapted to a format compatible with a manufacturing
execution system. We do not consider the Examiner's rejection or response
to arguments to have explained how this step relates to an abstract concept
of human activity (specifically, "concepts relating to managing relationships
or transactions between people") or organizing data. Further, claim 1,
6
Appeal2017-001574
Application 11/756,064
recites a limitation directed to supplying the new data to commence physical
manufacture of the product, claims 12 and 20 recite steps of re-commencing
the physical manufacture of the product. Similarly, the Examiner has not
explained how these steps relate to an abstract concept of organizing human
activity (specifically, "concepts relating to managing relationships or
transactions between people") or organizing data. Thus, we do not find that
the Examiner has shown the claims are directed to an abstract concept and
we do not reach the second part of the Alice test.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellants argue on pages 11 through 15 of the Appeal Brief, that the
Examiner's obviousness rejection is in error. Appellants argue
Landers fails to describe an adaptation from a model-based
arrangement to a shop floor instruction-based arrangement. The
Action asserts the CAD/CAM software package described by
Landers teaches this element. This assertion ignores that in the
present application the model-based arrangement is recognized
by the MPP system, but not at the shop floor. Further, in the
present application the shop floor instruction-based
arrangement is not recognized by the MPP system. Landers
describes a unified system that readily transitions between
models and CNC code. While a CNC machine may not
recognize a CAD model, the CAD system described by Landers
recognizes both formats.
App. Br. 12. Further Appellants argue:
J ayaram does not describe nor suggest adapting a new shop
order instance from a first model-based data arrangement into a
second data arrangement that includes a plurality of work
instructions for use on a shop floor, wherein the second data
arrangement is compatible with a manufacturing execution
system and not compatible with a manufacturing process
planning system.
7
Appeal2017-001574
Application 11/756,064
App. Br. 13.
Finally, Appellants argue that the skilled artisan would not combine
the Beasley, which describes a fully integrated system, with Landers and
Jayaram to arrive at the claimed invention. App. Br. 15.
We are not persuaded of error by these arguments. The Examiner has
provided a comprehensive respond to Appellants' augments on pages 45
through 50 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner's response and
we concur with the Examiner's findings. Specifically, the Examiner finds
and we concur that Landers teaches adapting a new shop order from a first
model based data arrangement to another for use on the shop floor. Answer
46-48 ( citing Landers teaching of converting CAD/CAM software models to
geometry to be used by CNC machines, see paragraphs 124, 128 and 143).
The Examiner finds that as Landers teaches that these model arrangements
must be translated in order to execute, they are unrecognizable or
incompatible with the other system. Answer 47--48. Similarly, the
Examiner finds that Beasley teaches a system to convert product definition
files into instructions for operating each machine on the factory floor, thus,
teaching converting information that is not recognized into instructions that
are recognized by the factory machines. Answer 48 ( citing Beasley Col. 11,
33-50). We concur with the Examiner's analysis and note that Appellants'
arguments merely assert the Examiner's finding is erroneous without
pointing to teachings of Landers that support Appellants' assertions. With
respect to Appellants' argument regarding the combination of Beasley, with
Landers and J ayaram we are not persuaded of error. The Examiner has
provided a rationale to combine the references on pages 19 and 22 of the
Final Action, to provide a more integrated system, and Appellants have not
8
Appeal2017-001574
Application 11/756,064
explained why this is in error. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 and we
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1 and claims 3, 6
through 8, 12 through 14, 16, 17, and 20 through 25 grouped with claim 1.
Appellants have not presented separate arguments directed to the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 26, accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 26 for the same reasons as claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 6 through 8, 12
through 14, 16, 17, and 20 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 6 through 8, 12
through 14, 16, 17, and 20 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9