Ex Parte Grishin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

14255177 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/255,177 04/17/2014 Alexey Grishin G66484 1110US.C1
(0059.2)
1065
26158 7590 09/28/2017
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
MALZAHN, DAVID H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2182
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
IPDocketing@WCSR.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXEY GRISHIN, ALEXANDER ZHIRKOV, and
ALEXEY ORAEVSKY
Appeal 2017-006550
Application 14/255,1771
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 9—28.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention is a method, apparatus, and computer program
product for calculating a sampled signal. The method includes determining
discrete samples of a continuous signal having a finite spectrum. A function
1 The real party in interest is General Harmonics International Inc.
2 Claims 1—8 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2017-006550
Application 14/255,177
series expansion is used to calculate at least a portion of the continuous
signal over the discrete samples. See Abstract.
Claim 9 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
9. A method performed by processing circuitry and
comprising:
determining a plurality of discrete samples of a continuous
signal having a finite spectrum;
determining coefficients of a function series expansion of
the continuous signal by applying a fast Fourier transform (FFT)
to perform convolutions of the plurality of discrete samples with
a plurality of derivatives of a sine function; and
using the function series expansion to calculate at least a
portion of the continuous signal over the plurality of discrete
samples.
Claims 9—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being drawn to
non-statutory subject matter.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Dec. 14, 2016), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar.
10, 2017), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 3, 2017) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
Does the claimed invention recite patent-eligible subject matter?
Principles of Law
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, []
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts. [] If so, we then ask, “[wjhat else is
there in the claims before us? [] To answer that question, []
consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an
2
Appeal 2017-006550
Application 14/255,177
ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] 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.”
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Inti, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014)
(citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct.
1289 (2012)).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the claimed
invention is directed to an abstract idea. App. Br. 6.
Appellants analogize the claimed invention to the invention at issue in
McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837
F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). App. Br. 6. Appellants contend that as in McRO,
the instant claims “are limited to application of a specific algorithm
(mathematical rules) to improve an existing technological process of
resampling a signal, which does not define an existing process.” Id.
We are not persuaded that the claimed invention is analogous to the
claimed invention in McRO. The claims in McRO were directed to a specific
asserted improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules
of a particular type. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. By contrast, the independent
claims under appeal recite only determining a plurality of discrete samples
of a continuous signal; determining coefficients of a function series
expansion; and (using the function series expansion to) calculating] at least
a portion of the continuous signal. Unlike McRO, the claims here are not
3
Appeal 2017-006550
Application 14/255,177
directed to an improvement that previously could only be produced through
subjective decisions by human users. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313.
Appellants disclose that in the prior art, resampling is known to be
performed through a series of mathematical operations. See Spec. 2—3. Such
calculations could be performed by a human operator, albeit in a time-
consuming fashion. We regard Appellants’ claimed invention to amount to a
“versatile and precise” set of calculations that may differ from the prior art
calculations, but which could similarly be performed by a human operator.
See Spec. 4—5.
We find that the claimed invention is more analogous to the claimed
invention in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). The court in FairWarning concluded that the claimed invention
drawn to a rule for monitoring audit log data for improper access amounted
to the mere adaptation of an old practice to a new environment, performing
tasks that “humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for
decades.” FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095. The court found that although
FairWaming’s claims require the use of a computer, “it is this incorporation
of a computer, not the claimed rule, that purportedly ‘improve[s] the existing
technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks.” Id.
(citation omitted).
The appealed claims are also analogous to the claimed invention in
Bancorp Services LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266
(Fed. Cir. 2012). In Bancorp, the claimed method of managing a life
insurance policy, including such steps as calculating fee units, calculating
surrender value, determining an investment value, calculating a policy value
and a policy unit value, and storing the policy unit value was found to be
4
Appeal 2017-006550
Application 14/255,177
directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea because the enumerated steps for
tracking, reconciling and administering a life insurance policy with a stable
component were considered steps that could be completed manually. The
specified computer components were found to be “no more than objects on
which the claimed methods operate,” and “the central processor nothing
more than a general purpose computer programmed in an unspecified
manner.” Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1273. As in Bancorp, the claimed steps of
determining coefficients of a function series expansion by applying a fast
Fourier transform to perform convolution, and using the function series
expansion to calculate at least a portion of the continuous signal, are
mathematical computation steps that could be completed manually. The
nominal claim recitation of “processing circuitry” equates to the general
purpose computer found in Bancorp.
Appellants further allege that the claimed invention is directed to a
patentable, technological improvement over existing resampling approaches.
The claimed invention uses the limited algorithm in a process specifically
designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional
industry practice. App. Br. 7. We are not persuaded by this argument. As
explained supra, we find that the mathematical computations recited in the
appealed claims are not so limited as Appellants argue, and are not limited
as in McRO to a process specifically designed to achieve an improved
technological result.
Appellants further argue that the claim is directed to significantly
more than an abstract idea — that it is directed to an improvement to digital
signal processing and resampling. The claims are asserted to include features
5
Appeal 2017-006550
Application 14/255,177
that amount to an inventive concept for an improvement over existing
resampling approaches. App. Br. 8.
We do not agree that the claimed invention amounts to “significantly
more” than an abstract idea. We agree with the Examiner that there is no
indication that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer
or improves any other technology. Ans. 3.
CONCLUSION
The claimed invention does not recite patent-eligible subject matter.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6