Ex Parte Fantana et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2015

12855048 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NICOLAIE FANTANA and LARS PETTERSON
____________

Appeal 2012-010908
Application 12/855,048
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–3, 5, and 6, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is for determining an individual failure rate for an
individual complex technical operating equipment. (Spec. ¶ 2.)

Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:

Appeal 2012-010908
Application 12/855,048

2
1. A method for determining an individual failure
rate for at least one individual technical operating equipment
using a data processing device to perform a computer
implemented method comprising:
receiving statistical data and characteristic data which are
specific for a type of technical operating equipment, at least a
portion of the characteristic data being used for the individual
technical operating equipment;
deriving additional characteristic data from information
relating to influences resultant from a point of use and
operation method of the individual technical operating
equipment in an industrial installation;
determining an individual failure rate based on the
statistical data, the characteristic data and the additional
characteristic data;
calculating individual failure rates for each of a group of
operating equipments; and
calculating an overall failure rate for a technical
installation which contains the group of operating equipments
based on the individual failure rates.

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Wang (US 2004/0167731 A1; pub. Aug. 26, 2004) (Ans.
2–12).
ISSUES
Appellants present multiple arguments as to why the Examiner has
erred. We focus our discussion below on the following dispositive issues:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Wang discloses the disputed
limitations of:
A method for determining an individual failure rate for at
least one individual technical operating equipment . . .
Appeal 2012-010908
Application 12/855,048

3
receiving statistical data and characteristic data which are
specific for a type of technical operating equipment, . . .
calculating individual failure rates for each of a group of
operating equipments; and
calculating an overall failure rate for a technical
installation which contains the group of operating equipments
based on the individual failure rates
as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Wang discloses the limitations of
dependent claims 2, 3, and 6?

ANALYSIS
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Final Rejection and Answer. Ans. 2–33. Rather
than repeat each of the arguments in the Briefs and the responses in the
Answer, our discussions here will be limited to the following points of
emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Wang fails to teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 4–7. We
are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Wang does not disclose a
“method for determining an individual failure rate for at least one individual
technical operating equipment . . .” or “receiving statistical data and
characteristic data which are specific for a type of technical operating
equipment, because, as the Examiner finds, Wang describes “[t]he failure
rate of a particular component may be obtained according to its real
conditions,” which discloses these disputed limitations of claim 1. See Ans.
20-22, citing Wang, Abstract.
Appeal 2012-010908
Application 12/855,048

4
We disagree with Appellants’ argument that Wang analyzes the
“entirety of the components employed in the power network, not the
reliability of an individual component,” App. Br. 6. Rather, we agree with
the Examiner’s findings that Wang describes “[t]he failure rate of a
particular component.” Wang, Abstract, emphasis added, ¶ 9 (“a failure
rate of a power network component.” Although Appellants argue “Wang is
directed to a more statistical approach,” and Wang is “based on
representative evaluations of a number of power network components of the
same not exclusively belonging to the power network in question but in
operation anywhere,” these arguments do not distinguish Wang’s disclosures
from the recitations of claim 1.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Wang describes
the system may assess the reliability of any power network component, the
reliability of an entire power network, or a portion of the power network,
which the Examiner finds teaches calculating individual failure rates for
each of a group of operating equipments, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 26,
citing Wang, ¶ 61.
Appellants also argue Wang fails to disclose the elements of
dependent claim 2, in particular because Wang “discloses a technique [] for
assessing the reliability of an entire power network.” App. Br. 10. We are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the Examiner’s
findings that Wang discloses determining an individual failure rate when
Wang describes determining information representative of a failure rate of a
power network component. See Ans. 30, citing Wang, ¶¶ 9, 11, 13.
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that ¶ 13 of Wang
Appeal 2012-010908
Application 12/855,048

5
describes the information representative of a failure rate of a power network
component may be received from a data store containing failure rates of a
plurality of power network components, the failure rates being based on a
population of power network components of the same type as each power
network component, which teaches determining a type-specific average
failure rate based on the statistical data specific for the operating equipment
type, as recited in claim 2. Ans. 30 (emphasis added).
Moreover, although Appellants allege dependent claims 3 and 6 recite
further distinguishing features, Appellants merely reiterate what the disputed
claim limitations recite and make general allegations as to the teachings of
Wang. See App. Br. 9-10. Merely reciting the language of the claims and
asserting that the cited prior art reference does not teach or suggest each
claim limitation is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”)
Thus, in the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical
reasoning to the contrary, the Examiner’s findings are reasonable and we
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we find the evidence of record
supports the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5, and 6.
Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
Appeal 2012-010908
Application 12/855,048

6
previously discussed for patentability of the claims discussed above, we also
sustain the rejections of the remaining pending claims. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv).

DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1–3, 5, and 6.
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