Ex Parte Tu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

13615209 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/615,209 09/13/2012
30423 7590 08/23/2018
Seed IP Law Group LLP/ST US Originating
701 FIFTH A VE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Travis Tu
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.
l 1SHI10735US01/8l9063.406 9682
EXAMINER
DINH,LYNDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2863
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TRAVIS TU
Appeal2017-009708
Application 13/615,209 1
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is STMicroelectronics
(China) Investment Co. Ltd. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009708
Application 13/615,209
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to a method of
determining the attitude of an object (i.e., the position of the object
determined by the relationship between its axes and basis axes). Spec. ,r,r 7,
17-20, Fig. 3. According to the Specification, the present invention avoids
the Gimbal lock problem that occurs when Euler angles are used to express
attitude of an object and avoids the problems in achieving accuracy over a
long period that occur when a gyroscope based system is used. Id. ,r,r 2-7.
Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below, are the only independent claims on
appeal and are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
determining an attitude of an electromechanical object
with a microprocessor, the determining including:
receiving with the microprocessor a gravity acceleration
signal from an accelerometer positioned on the object and a
geomagnetic field signal from a magnetometer positioned on
the object, the gravity acceleration signal and the geomagnetic
field signal changing with the attitude of the object accordingly;
determining with the microprocessor a gravity field
representation in an object coordinate system according to the
gravity acceleration signal, and determining with the
microprocessor a geomagnetic field representation in the object
coordinate system according to the geomagnetic field signal;
calculating with the microprocessor a conversion
parameter of a conversion coordinate system according to the
gravity field representation and the geomagnetic field
representation in the object coordinate system, the conversion
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated August 9, 2016
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed March 24, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the
Examiner's Answer dated May 4, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed
July 5, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-009708
Application 13/615,209
coordinate system being between the object coordinate system
and a terrestrial coordinate system; and
determining the attitude of the object according to the
conversion parameter of the conversion coordinate system;
displaying a representation of the object on a display based
on the conversion parameter of the conversion coordinate
system, the display being coupled to the microprocessor.
10. An apparatus for determining an attitude of an object,
compnsmg:
an accelerometer on the object configured to measure a
gravity field and generate a gravity acceleration signal;
a magnetometer on the object configured to measure a
geomagnetic field and generate a geomagnetic field signal;
a microprocessor that includes:
a receiving module configured to receive the
gravity acceleration signal and the geomagnetic
field signal, the gravity acceleration signal and the
geomagnetic field signal configured to change with
the attitude of the object accordingly;
a first determining module configured to
determine a gravity field representation in an
object coordinate system according to the gravity
acceleration signal, and determine a geomagnetic
field representation in the object coordinate system
according to the geomagnetic field signal;
a conversion module configured to calculate
a conversion parameter of a conversion coordinate
system according to the gravity field representation
and the geomagnetic field representation in the
object coordinate system, the conversion
coordinate system being between the object
3
Appeal2017-009708
Application 13/615,209
coordinate system and a terrestrial coordinate
system; and
a second determining module configured to
determine the attitude of the object according to
the conversion parameter of the conversion
coordinate system.
Appeal Br. 19, 21-22 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 3-10,
and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the grounds that the claimed invention
is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 3--4.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects all claims on appeal as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 101 based upon the claims being directed to abstract ideas.
Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 4--15. The Examiner states that claim 1 is directed to
mathematical algorithms and, in particular, the "abstract idea of determining
an attitude of an electromechanical object, determining a gravity field
representation in an objection coordinate system, calculating a conversion
parameter, and determining the attitude of the object." Final Act. 4. The
Examiner states that claim 10 is directed to the same mathematical
algorithms. Id.
Appellant argues that claims 1 and 10 are not directed to an abstract
idea and argues that the claims when, considered as an ordered combination,
improve the relevant technology. Appeal Br. 10-13; 17; Reply Br. passim.
On the present record, Appellant's arguments persuade us of
reversible error. The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima
4
Appeal2017-009708
Application 13/615,209
facie case ofunpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992). To determine whether an invention claims ineligible subject matter
requires the application of the two-step test first introduced in Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012), and
further explained in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347,
2354 (2014). The first step requires a determination as to whether the claims
at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as an abstract idea.
See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The second step requires examination of "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." Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
Our analysis of the first step of the Mayo/Alice test resolves the
present matter. The Examiner correctly states that claim 1 recites receiving
signals (from conventional input devices-an accelerometer and a
magnetometer), performing specific calculations using the signals as input,
and displaying results of the calculation. Ans. 4. The Examiner reasons that
the claims are thus similar to those our reviewing court deemed patent
ineligible in, for example Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims directed to "collecting data
from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying the results"
were not patent eligible). Id.
Although the Examiner's stated reasoning is logically sound, 3 we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection because the present claims, considered
3 See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., No. 2016-2502, 2018 WL
3485608, at *9-17 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2018) (Plager, J., concurring in part
and dissenting in part) ( explaining the difficulty in determining whether
patent claims are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea).
5
Appeal2017-009708
Application 13/615,209
in their entirety, are more similar to claims that our reviewing court has held
patent eligible. In particular, claim 10 is directed to a system (including an
accelerometer, magnetometer, and specially programmed microprocessor)
that provides an improved method of determining the attitude of a real-world
object. Claim 1 is directed to making use of a system similar to that of claim
10. Neither claim merely states the result (attitude calculation) while
covering any means of achieving the result; rather, each claim requires that
the result be achieved in a certain manner ( e.g., as in claim 1, "calculating
... a conversion parameter of a conversion coordinate system").
As in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,
1314--1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claims here are directed to a specific
process for determining a useful end result (here, determining object
attitude). The claims require a specific technical approach to the technical
problem at hand and are said to improve the functioning of prior art attitude-
determining apparatuses. As in Enfzsh, "we are not faced with a situation
where general-purpose computer components are added post-hoc to a
fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation." Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, the claims
as a whole are directed to a specific way of improving an attitude-
determination system and, in this sense, are analogous to the claims of
Enfzsh that were directed to "a specific type of data structure designed to
improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory." Id. The
Examiner does not maintain a prior art rejection and does not find that the
recited process as a whole merely implements old functionality in a new
environment.
6
Appeal2017-009708
Application 13/615,209
The claims here are distinguishable from those of Elec. Power Grp.,
because they go beyond merely organizing existing information into a new
form or carrying out a fundamental economic practice. Elec. Power Grp.,
830 F.3d at 1355 ("The claims in this case do not even require a new source
or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it."); see also McRO,
837 F.3d at 1315 ("the automation goes beyond merely 'organizing
[ existing] information into a new form' or carrying out a fundamental
economic practice" ( alteration in original) ( citation omitted)). The claims
are similarly distinguishable from other patent claims our reviewing court
has determined are patent ineligible. See, e.g., FairWarning IP, LLC v.
Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that
claims were patent ineligible because they merely implemented an old fraud
detection practice in a new computer environment); Interval Licensing, 2018
WL 3485608, at *6-7 (holding that claims were patent ineligible because
they merely demand "the production of a desired result [presentation of
information in a non-overlapping way on a display] ... without any
limitation on how to produce that result").
Although the question before us is a fairly close one, we determine
that the claims before us are not directed to an abstract idea for the reasons
explained above. Because we decide this case in Appellant's favor under
step one of the analysis, we need not reach step two. 4
4 We note that the claims at issue here also bear similarity to those of
Example 4 of the USPTO's January 2015 "Abstract Idea Examples" and
those of SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'! Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir.
2010), in that the claims here require specific kinds of inputs, specific
calculations, and a useful output. Appeal Br. 13-16. While the SiRF
decision predates Alice (Ans. 12), Example 4 does not (Reply Br. 3--4).
7
Appeal2017-009708
Application 13/615,209
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18.
REVERSED
8