Ex parte WAGNER

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 29, 1998

07623324 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 5, 1990.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte CRAIG A. WAGNER
_____________
Appeal No. 94-2299
Application 07/623,3241
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 94-2299
Application No. 07/623,324
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 3
through 5.
The disclosed invention relates to a method in a
multiblock system for iteratively processing
pseudocompressibility equations as a prediction of steady,
incompressible fluid flow over a given geometry.
Claim 3 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
3. In a multiblock system for iteratively processing the
pseudocompressibility equations as a prediction of steady,
incompressible fluid flow over a given geometry, a method of
coupling solutions to the pseudocompressibility equations
between blocks of the multiblock system comprising the steps
of:
creating an overlapping multiblock grid model of the given
geometry, each block being defined by boundary nodes and
containing interior nodes wherein boundary nodes from one
block overlap to interior nodes of an adjoining block;
updating, at each iteration, boundary nodes from the one block
overlapping to interior nodes of the adjoining block, where
updated boundary nodes for the one block are equal to a
difference between corresponding boundary nodes for the one
block and overlapped interior nodes of the adjoining block;
and
processing, utilizing the pseudocompressibility equations,
both boundary and interior nodes of each block according to a
central finite differencing method wherein equation solutions
Appeal No. 94-2299
Application No. 07/623,324
3
at updated boundary nodes of the one block overlapping to
interior nodes of the adjoining block use boundary and
interior nodes of the adjoining block, whereby the equation
solutions at updated boundary nodes are coupled between the
one block and the adjoining block.
Claims 3 through 5 stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being based on a nonenabling
disclosure. According to the examiner (Answer, pages 8 and
9):
Applicant has not adequately disclosed how the
nodes are picked for a given geometry, how the
picked nodes are assembled, and how to determine the
compressibility of the fluid.
The determination of the compressibility of the
fluid appears to be where the disclosure is more
lacking. Applicant has not even disclosed which
equations are used, or the data processing system to
solve the 4,000 equations with the appropriate
software to manage the processing of such a complex
system.
The prior art cited by the Examiner and
Applicant is evidence of the level of skill in the
art. See Thompson, Composite Grid Generation Code
for General 3-D Regions--the Eagle Code, AIAA
Journal, 1988. In the fluid flow art the knowledge
of software engineering is rudimentary, at best.
Therefore, given the state in the art in tandem with
the shallowness of the disclosure [sic]. It would
have take [sic, taken] countless man/hours to
develop the invention as presently claimed.
Claims 3 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claims
Appeal No. 94-2299
Application No. 07/623,324
4
were found to be nonstatutory because (Answer, paper number
11, page 2) :
The claims are not statutory even though the
invention is a series of steps performed on a
computer because the steps do not perform
independent physical acts or manipulate data
representing physical objects or activities to
achieve a practical application. In fact, the
claimed invention merely solve [sic, solves] a
purely mathematical problem (i.e., segmenting an
equation into manageable blocks so as to solve a
mathematical problem) without any limitation to a
practical application.
Reference is made to the brief and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the rejections of claims 3 through 5 under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, and 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appellant’s response (Brief, pages 7 through 10) to the
lack of enablement rejection is reproduced in toto:
As Appellant points out in his specification at
page 6, lines 8-20 and page 9, lines 8-19,
generation of a multiblock grid model is known in
the art and does not comprise part of Appellant’s
invention. Appellant is using one such known grid
generation tool to create the overlapping multiblock
grid model that makes the coupling method of the
present invention possible. Accordingly, Appellant
is providing herewith a copy of the cited reference.
Appeal No. 94-2299
Application No. 07/623,324
5
Previously, boundary nodes of one block merely
abutted boundary nodes of an adjoining block thereby
creating [sic] an artificial boundaries within the
flow region. See Appellant’s specification at page
6, line 20 to page 7, line 8. It is submitted that
Appellant’s method uses one of the known grid model
generation tools to create an overlapping multiblock
grid model as claimed. It is therefore submitted
that the Appellant has adequately disclosed how the
nodes are picked and assembled.
Determination of steady incompressible fluid
flow by computer processing of the
pseudocompressibility equations in an iterative
fashion (in conjunction with the Navier Stokes
equations) is also known in the art. See
Appellant’s specification at page 2, line 17 to page
3, line 2; page 3, lines 13-15; and page 4, line 1
to page 6, line 7. Accordingly, the Appellant did
not provide in the disclosure the details of what
data processing system or software may be used to
solve the Chorin equations (equations (3) and (4) in
Appellant’s originally filed specification).
Indeed, the iterative process introduced by Chorin
dates back to 1967. It is submitted that the
Appellant has enhanced these existing methods based
on using an overlapping multiblock grid model whose
nodes are updated as claimed.
Specifically, prior to the processing of the
pseudocompressibility equations at each iteration,
Appellant updates boundary nodes of one block that
overlap to corresponding interior nodes of an
adjoining block. An updated boundary node is
generated by taking the difference between the
boundary node for the one block and the overlapped
interior node of the adjoining block. Support and
understanding for this claim language may be found
in Appellant’s specification at page 13, lines 8-11,
and page 8, line 23, to page 9, line 9 in
conjunction with FIG. 3. For example, prior to
Appeal No. 94-2299
Application No. 07/623,324
6
processing pseudocompressibility equations for block
102 at node B (i.e., a boundary node for block 102),
node B is updated by the difference between its
value as a boundary node and its value as an
interior node 101i in block 101. In this way,
blocks 101 and 102 are coupled prior to equating the
pseudocompressibility solution according to a
central finite differencing method described in the
Appellant’s specification at page 11, line 22-26.
It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner’s
contention that “it would take countless man/hours
to develop the invention” as presently claimed is
unfounded. As pointed out above, the solving of
pseudocompressibility equations in an iterative
fashion has been known since 1967 (see page 2, line
17 to page 3, line 2). Since that time, grid models
of flow regions have been developed as discrete
mathematical pieces that introduce artificial
boundaries in the flow region. It is submitted that
the Appellant’s claimed method overcomes this
deficiency by coupling the adjoining blocks thereby
removing the artificial boundaries to allow the
solution to converge more quickly. Thus, known
iterative processing techniques for solving the
pseudocompressibility equations need only be updated
with the Appellant’s claimed method. Furthermore,
Appellant is neither claiming nor is limited by a
particular data processing system. Accordingly, any
high speed processor capable of handling the volume
of equations may be used.
We agree. The lack of enablement rejection is reversed
because the examiner has not made a convincing showing that
the “countless man/hours to develop the invention as presently
claimed” would amount to undue experimentation.
As indicated supra, the disclosed and claimed invention
Appeal No. 94-2299
Application No. 07/623,324
7
is directed to more than just the mathematical algorithms
required to perform the claimed method. Appellant has
correctly argued (Brief, pages 6 and 7) that:
Indeed, as pointed out above, the application of the
pseudocompressibility equations to a grid model to
solve a fluid flow problem is known in the art. It
is submitted that Appellant is only claiming the use
of the pseudocompressibility equations in
combination with the above described first two
process steps. Thus, it is submitted that the
claims do not seek to preempt a mathematical
algorithm per se. Instead, the instant claims are
analogous to those upheld in Diamond v. Diehr,
wherein the Court stated that the applicants “do not
seek to patent a mathematical formula . . . they
seek only to foreclose from others the use of that
equation in conjunction with all of the other steps
in their claimed process”. 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981).
Appellant’s claimed method is similarly limited in
that the mathematical algorithm recited is only
applicable in conjunction with all of the other
process steps.
We agree. “[A] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses
a mathematical formula, computer program or digital computer.”
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981). In
summary, the nonstatutory rejection is reversed because we
disagree with the examiner’s conclusion that the claimed
method is “without any limitation to a practical
Appeal No. 94-2299
Application No. 07/623,324
In State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 2
149 F.3d 1368, 1373, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1998),
the Court abandoned the so-called Freeman-Walter-Abele test in
favor of a more common sense approach of determining whether
the claimed subject matter “constitutes a practical
application of a mathematical algorithm, formula, or
calculation.”
8
application.” 2
Appeal No. 94-2299
Application No. 07/623,324
9
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 3 through 5
under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and 35 U.S.C. §
101 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )

svt
Appeal No. 94-2299
Application No. 07/623,324
10
Office of Counsel
Building 112T
Naval Underwater Systems Center
Newport, Rhode Island 02841-5047