Ex Parte Boucher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

14162176 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/162,176 01/23/2014 Patrice Boucher
24978 7590 11/02/2017
GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD
300 S. WACKER DR.
SUITE 2500
CHICAGO, IL 60606
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.
5491.116449 7815
EXAMINER
BOOMER, JEFFREY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
ptomail@ gbclaw. net
docket@gbclaw.net
verify@gbclaw.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PATRICE BOUCHER and NICOLAS WACYK
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 176
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by JOSEPH L. DIXON,
Administrative Patent Judge.
Opinion Dissenting-in-part filed by JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judge.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1---6, 8, and 9. Claim 7 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
The claims are directed to a method, device and computer program for
assisting the maintenance of an aircraft system using a diagnostic assistance
tool and experience feedback data. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for a computer for assisting the maintenance of
a system of an aircraft comprising at least one item of equipment
of the aircraft, a detector that detects a fault of said at least one
item or of a function implemented by said at least one item, and
a diagnostic device that performs computer-readable instructions
usmg a processor for executing the steps of the method
compnsmg:
providing an onboard aircraft database in the aircraft, a
content of said onboard aircraft database corresponding to part
of a content of a remote ground database having at least one entry
associating a fault identifier with a list of said at least one item
liable to be a cause of the identified fault, and a probability of the
corresponding cause of the identified fault, for each item of the
list of said at least one item, that a corresponding item is the cause
of said identified fault;
detecting, using the detector, a fault of the system of the
aircraft; identifying, using the processor, said each item of the
list of said at least one item being liable to be the cause of said
detected fault, alone or in combination with at least one other
item of said equipment of the aircraft;
determining, using the processor, said probability of the
corresponding cause of the identified fault that said each item of
the list considered is the cause of said detected fault being
determined on a basis of said onboard aircraft database;
identifying, using the processor, said at least one item of
said equipment of the aircraft actually being the cause of said
detected fault;
2
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
updating, using the processor, an onboard temporary
database on a basis of said fault identifier of said at least one
identified item and said detected fault;
sending, using the processor, a content of said onboard
temporary database to said remote ground database for updating
said remote ground database on a basis of the content of said
temporary database;
erasing, using the processor, said onboard temporary
database upon completion of the update of said remote ground
database;
determining, using the processor, said probability of the
corresponding cause of the identified fault being implicated in
the system of said aircraft, said probability of the corresponding
cause of the identified fault being computed based on experience
feedback, said experience feedback being defined by a number
of inputs corresponding to a number of instances of said inputs,
and by a threshold number of said inputs; and
storing both of the onboard aircraft and temporary
databases in the system of said aircraft.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Lin et al.
Kipersztok et al.
Yukawa et al.
us 5,842,222
US 6,574,537 B2
US 2007 /0033277 Al
Nov. 24, 1998
June 3, 2003
Feb. 8,2007
"Failure mode and effects analysis," https://web.archive.org/web/
20131217224524/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_mode_and_effects_
analysis, archived by archive.org on 12/17/2013, accessed on
10/20/2016, (hereinafter "Wikipedia (NPL)").
3
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims
1, 8, and 9 are directed to the abstract idea of manipulating data for the
purpose of fault detection.
Claims 2---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being dependent
on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claims 1---6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Yukawa in view ofKipersztok and further in
view of Wikipedia (NPL ). 1
Claims 1---6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Yukawa in view ofKipersztok further in view of
Lin et al. and further in view of Wikipedia (NPL ).
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101
With regards to the lack of patent eligible subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner maintains:
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 are directed to the abstract idea
manipulating data for the purpose of fault detection. The
invention does not appear to do anything or transform anything
1 We find the Examiner includes an introductory paragraph with these 3
references alone (Final Act. 6; Ans. 2), but the Examiner only includes a
discussion of the four references in the ground of the rejection including the
Lin reference. Consequently, the Examiner has not included a separate
statement of the rejection in the Final Action nor in the Non-final Action,
mailed December 17, 2015.
4
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
besides data further rendering the claim abstract. The claim( s)
does/ do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because
the recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation
to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any
computer implementation. The mere gathering and manipulation
of data do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
of manipulating data. Moreover, the limitations reciting a
diagnostic device, device (further, a device may be interpreted as
software only), an airplane, and an aircraft merely generally link
the abstract idea to a particular technological field, and it appears
that the invention would function just the same if it were linked
to another technological field (e.g. an automobile, a virtual
aircraft (i.e. a software model of an aircraft)).
(Final Act. 5).
We find the Examiner has provided insufficient factual findings and
analysis regarding the patent eligible subject matter determination. We find
the Examiner's limited finding of "the abstract idea manipulating data for
the purpose of fault detection" to oversimplify the claimed invention.
Rather, we agree with Appellants that under step one of the Alice analysis,
the Examiner failed in showing the claims are directed to an abstract idea,
i.e., "[t]he presently claimed invention is directed to detecting or diagnosing
faults in the aircraft using the diagnostic device having the computer
processor." (App. Br. 16, 18-20). We agree with Appellants and find that
the Examiner over simplifies the claimed method's sequence of steps/
instructions as set forth in independent claims 1, 8, and 9.
We agree with Appellants, who argue:
[I]ndependent claims 1, 8, and 9 are directed to methods or
devices having new and useful improvements for detecting or
diagnosing faults of items or of functions implemented by the
5
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
items of an aircraft (i.e., machines and pieces of equipment, such
as a pin or a cable; see, subject specification, para. [0054]) by
determining, using a computer processor, a cause of the detected
fault of the aircraft based on a probability of the cause of the fault
using experience feedback. As such, all independent claims
relate to the aircraft diagnostic device or its use, which is one of
the four statutory categories of invention.
(App. Br. 16). Therefore, we find independent claims 1, 8, and 9 are not
directed solely to an abstract idea, and we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 1---6, 8, and 9 as not being directed to patent eligible subject matter.
35 U.S.C. § 103
YUKAWA, KIPERSZTOK, LIN, AND WIKIPEDIA2
With respect to claims 1---6, 8, and 9, Appellants argue the claims
together. (App. Br. 20). We select independent claim 1 as the representative
claim for the group and will address Appellants' arguments thereto.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend "(A) the cited references fail to disclose all of the
claimed features; and (B) the cited references teach away from the missing
features." (App. Br. 20). Appellants specifically maintain the prior art must
2 We note that the Examiner identifies the rejections under review as
"Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101" and "Claims 1-6,
8, and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. [§] 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yukawa et al. (US 2007/0033277 Al) in view of
Kipersztok et al. (US 6,574,537 B2) and further in view of Wikipedia
(NPL)." (Ans. 2). We note that the prior art rejection is actually based upon
the four references rather than merely the three references. (Final Act.
11-12) and the Examiner did not set forth a separate statement of the three
reference rejection based upon the three references addressing all of the
claim limitations.
6
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
teach or suggest all of the claimed features, but Appellants proffer that the
combination of prior art references does not teach or suggest the claim
limitation:
[D]etermining, using the processor, said probability of the
corresponding cause of the identified fault being implicated in
the system of said aircraft, said probability of the corresponding
cause of the identified fault being computed based on experience
feedback, said experience feedback being defined by a number
of inputs corresponding to a number of instances of said
experience feedback, and by a threshold number of said inputs.
(App. Br. 21 ). Appellants further identify examples from the Specification
to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. (App. Br. 21-22;
citing i-fi-1 60-62 and 68-69).
We find the Examiner's statement of the rejection to be clear as to
how the four references have been applied. Furthermore, we find the
Examiner's reliance upon the Wikipedia article, which does not appear to
have a date to establish it as "prior art," to actually be based upon the well-
known use of "failure mode and effects analysis" (FMEA). Appellants
generally reply to both (the three reference and the four reference)
rejections. (Reply Br. 12). Consequently, we find no lack of notice or due
process.
With that said, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants' reliance
upon the limitation "experience feedback" to differentiate and distinguish
from the prior art is troubling. We agree with the Examiner that "experience
feedback" is not expressly defined in the Specification, and Appellants have
not identified a definition in the Specification. Appellants repeatedly refer
to the amended claim language,
7
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
determining, using the processor, said probability of the
corresponding cause of the identified fault being implicated in
the system of said aircraft, said probability of the corresponding
cause of the identified fault being computed based on
experience feedback, said experience feedback being defined by
a number of inputs corresponding to a number of instances of
said inputs, and by a threshold number of said inputs
as defining the term "experience feedback."
Appellants further proffer:
The specification also clarifies that the number of inputs
correspond to a number of instances of the experience feedback;
that is, the number of times that the fault considered has been
detected and that the items accused of and responsible for that
fault have been identified. Paragraph [0069]. This is significant
at least because by providing a threshold number of inputs for
determining a probability, only the experience feedback data
considered sufficiently relevant to be taken into account in
maintenance procedures is used in the maintenance procedures.
Paragraph [0068]. Defining experience feedback, and
computing probability based on such experience feedback as
claimed, improves efficiency of the overall method, and can help
to avoid unnecessary consideration of possible outliers when
assisting maintenance, reducing maintenance cost and time.
(Reply Br. 8).
We find Appellants' argument to be unavailing because we find
Appellants' proffered definition of "experience feedback" to be circular
wherein the proffered definition/clarification in paragraphs 68 and 69
identify a threshold number and a number of inputs in light of "experience
feedback" and the Appellants proffer the definition of "experience feedback"
in light of the threshold and number of inputs. Defining each term in view
of the other term is not a useful or limiting definition or clarification.
8
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
As a result, we give the claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification, which is that there is some
feedback from users and once the number of feedback responses passes a
threshold, then the feedback is determined to be sufficiently relevant for
maintenance procedures to be updated.
With this understanding of the claimed invention, we agree with the
Examiner that the FMEA (which Wikipedia was cited to teach) was an old
and well-known procedure for analysis of failures in aircraft maintenance as
evidenced by its historical beginnings in a military standard (MIL-P-1629
(1949) revised in 1980 as MIL-STD--1629A). Consequently, we find the
rejection to be based upon FMEA rather than the specific content of the
Wikipedia reference. Therefore, we find the date of the memorial document
of Wikipedia to be of little consequence regarding the availability of FMEA
as a prior art methodology known at the time of the invention.
With regards to the Examiner's reliance upon the Wikipedia article to
teach "experience feedback," Appellants contend the Wikipedia article is
unclear and illegible and Appellants were unable to verify the publication
date. (App. Br. 24). Appellants supply a second copy of the Wikipedia
reference which is more illegible, but again has a download date of April 29,
2016 which is not prior art.
We agree with Appellant that Wikipedia is not necessarily the best
source of prior art references due to the ability to change the content, and we
note that the dates are not necessarily before Appellants' filing date. Yet, as
discussed above, we find the Wikipedia content regarding FMEA to be
relied upon by the Examiner in the rejection and to be based upon US
9
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
Armed Forces military procedures document MIL-P-1629 (1949) which is
referenced in the "History" portion of Wikipedia.
Appellants again contend that the Wikipedia article (NPL) is unclear
and the article was archived after the present application's foreign priority
date. (Reply Br. 8-9). We agree with Appellants that the memorial
document identifying the well-known use of FMEA is after the critical date,
but we find the Examiner's reliance upon the FMEA described therein to be
based upon a 60 year old military specification for testing and analysis for
fault identification. As a result, Appellants' argument does not show error in
the Examiner's reliance upon the well-known use ofFMEA.
Consequently, we find Appellants' argument regarding the date of the
Wikipedia discussion of FMEA analysis to be unavailing.
The Examiner further maintains:
Kipersztok teaches that the probability of failure is based
on the outcome tests; moreover, the probability of failure is based
on tests, the tests having been based on previous analysis, testing,
and data (i.e. the tests themselves read on experience feedback
and the analysis required to create the tests reads on experience
feedback being defined by a number of inputs corresponding to
a number of instances of said inputs). Appellant further argues
that the prior art does not teach that the probability is based on a
threshold number of the inputs; however, the limitation reads on
the event that the probably is determined in Kipersztok by a
single occurrence of a fault.
(Ans. 5---6).
Appellants contend:
Regardless, in Wikipedia, the identification of potential
failure modes is performed based on experience with similar
products and processes. See, Wikipedia, page 1, fourth
10
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
paragraph. In the FMEA analysis, previous calculations of the
similar products (or items) or processes are evaluated to
determine the potential causes of the failure modes based on a
probability ranking. See, Wikipedia, page 3, section Probability
(P). In contrast, claim 1 generally calls for the probability of the
corresponding cause of the identified fault that is computed
based on experience feedback of the identified item (being the
cause of the detected fault), not based on the experience feedback
of other similar items or processes. The Wikipedia article fails
to disclose this feature as recited in claim 1.
Moreover, in Wikipedia, the experience feedback of the
similar items or processes is defined by a severity of a worst-case
scenario adverse end effect or state based on cost and/or loss of
life or quality of life of the items or processes. See, Wikipedia,
page 3, section Severity (S). Although the experience feedback
of the FMEA analysis is to be updated by a customer feedback
(Wikipedia, page 5, section Timing), the Wikipedia article fails
to disclose or even suggest the experience feedback being
defined by a number of inputs corresponding to a number of
instances of the inputs, and by a threshold number of the inputs,
as recited in claim 1.
(App. Br. 25-26).
Appellants' argument regarding the individual references does not
address what the combination of the prior art references would have thought
or suggested the use of the corresponding single input and the single
threshold as maintained by the Examiner in the grounds of the rejection.
(Ans. 6).
Additionally, the Examiner maintains "the probability is based on a
threshold number of the inputs; however, the limitation reads on the event
that the probably is determined in Kipersztok by a single occurrence of a
fault." (Ans. 6)(emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that the
claim language does not identify any specific parameters regarding the
11
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
threshold number and a single occurrence is a reasonable interpretation of
the claimed threshold.
Appellants further contend regarding the Examiner's interpretation of
threshold as a single occurrence:
Further, even under the alternate theory set out in the
Examiner's Answer, Kipersztok fails to teach or suggest the
claimed experience feedback. Kipersztok is cited for a general
teaching that probabilities are calculated based on experience,
and a general teaching that the probability of failure is based on
the outcome tests (Examiner's Answer; page 5). However, the
application of these general teachings to the specific claim
features is unsupported in the Response to Argument. The
claimed probability of a corresponding cause of an identified
fault is computed based on claimed experience feedback. The
claimed experience feedback is defined by a number of inputs
corresponding to a number of instances of the experience
feedback, and by a threshold number of the inputs. This is much
more specific than simply determining probability from
"experience" or "outcome tests."
(Reply Br. 10).
The Examiner, in the statement of the rejection, further maintains with
regard to "experience feedback":
The probability being determined, as mapped in previous
steps, reads on this limitation. Moreover, "said probability
of the corresponding cause of the identified fault being
computer based on experience feedback ... "is understood to
be the old and well-known technique of Failure mode and
effects analysis (FMEA). The Wikipedia article on FMEA is
used to clarify the secondary reference to show that FMEA
analysis was well-known in the art of failure analysis. FMEA
includes calculating probabilities based on experience, the
experience being defined by a number of inputs, and
including a threshold number of inputs).
12
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
(Final Act. 9).
The Examiner further maintains Appellants' Specification "never
explicitly defines" the claim term "experience feedback." We find
paragraph [00139] discloses "experience feedback" data can come from
flight tests. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that "experience
feedback" can be data received from tests. (Ans. 5).
Moreover, Appellants do not identify how the Examiner's reliance
upon a single occurrence for the threshold is unreasonable or in error in light
of the broad claim language. Additionally, we note Appellants merely rely
upon merely the information content (nonfunctional descriptive material),
rather than how the probability is computed for the corresponding cause of
the identified fault. We find the content of the information or the values
does not distinguish the determination of probability. As a result,
Appellants' argument does not show error in the Examiner's factual findings
or conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants further contend:
The Response to Argument (page 6) also alleges that
Kipersztok teaches that the experience feedback is defined by
threshold number of inputs because, "the limitation reads on the
event that the [probability] is determined in Kipersztok by a
single occurrence of a fault." This theory appears to be separate
from the theory of rejection the Examiner set out in the final
Office Action, which relied on the Wikipedia's disclosure of
FMEA for this feature: "FMEA includes calculating probabilities
based on experience, the experience being defined by a number
of inputs, and including a threshold number of inputs." Final
Office Action, page 9. As previously submitted by Appellant in
the Appeal Brief, the FMEA analysis disclosed in the Wikipedia
article does not teach or suggest experience feedback defines at
13
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
least by the claimed threshold number of the inputs, nor
computing probability based on such experience feedback.
(Reply Br. 10).
Appellants provide an example of the interpretation of the use of
experience feedback in the determination of probability. (Reply Br. 11 ).
We note Appellants' example is not commensurate in scope with the broad
claim language of independent claim 1. Consequently, Appellants' example
does not show error in the Examiner's finding of fact or conclusion of
obviousness of independent claim 1.
Additionally, Appellants contend:
Simply determining probability "by a single occurrence of
a fault," as alleged to be disclosed in Kipersztok, would not
disclose or suggest the claimed computing probability from
experience feedback, as such determining would not explicitly or
inherently consider either a number of inputs or a threshold
number. Further, it is not clear whether Kipersztok even
discloses determining probability "by a single occurrence of a
fault" in any event or what such determining would entail, as the
Examiner does not cite where in Kipersztok such a disclosure is
found. As previously submitted by Appellant, Kipersztok
determines probability of failure by an associated rank, Col. 6,
lines 39-43; Col. 15, lines 50-57, not by a number of inputs
corresponding to a number of instances of the inputs, nor a
threshold number of inputs. Thus, this additional theory of
rejection is also unsupported.
(Reply Br. 11 ).
We find the Kipersztok reference discloses the use of probability and
calculation thereof.
Each node has at least two states and the diagnostic model
assigns a probability to each state of a node based upon the
14
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
systemic information, the experiential information and/or the
factual information. Using such a diagnostic model, the
processing element can determine the probability of failure for
each component that may have caused the observed symptoms.
(Col. 5, 11. 25-31). The Kipersztok reference further discloses "[t]he
diagnostic system and method permit the suspect components to be reliably
identified and to be ranked based upon the probability that a respective
suspect component caused the problem." (Kipersztok, col. 6 11. 40-43). As
a result, the ranking does not negate that a probability is determined.
Finally, Appellants contend the Kipersztok reference teaches away,
and the Examiner's response to arguments fails to consider the claimed
number of inputs or the claimed threshold. (Reply Br. 11 ). Specifically,
Appellants contend:
Claim 1 has the feature of determining the probability of
the corresponding cause of the identified fault based on
experience feedback defined by a number of inputs
corresponding to a number of instances of the experience
feedback, and by a threshold number of the inputs, which is not
shown or suggested in the art relied on by the Examiner. In fact,
the art relied on by the Examiner teach away from this process
step set forth in claim 1.
In Kipersztok, the experience feedback is defined by the outcome
of the tests ranked with the priority, not by a number of inputs
corresponding to a number of instances of the experience
feedback. Moreover, a threshold number of the inputs is
completely missing in Kipersztok.
(App. Br. 26-27).
15
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
The Examiner maintains:
Appellant argues that the references teach away from the alleged
missing features. Kipersztok is used to teach the experience
feedback being defined by a number of inputs corresponding to
a number of instances of inputs (i.e. the tests themselves), while
the Wikipedia article is used to clarify that tests used for fault
determination are old and well-known in the art as seen by the
old and well-known FMEA technique. FMEA includes analyzing
a plurality of faults which occur during the analysis period, and
therefrom, a probability of the part failing is determined. This
type of analysis is old and well-known for being implemented in
a design phase of a system. Therefore, the running of tests on
Kipersztok reads on the probability being based on experience
feedback as defined in the claims. The threshold number of
inputs is any number of inputs required for Kipersztok to
determine the probability of fault (even if it is just once). On p.
2 7 [of the Appeal Brief], Appellant discourages using experience
from mechanics, which Appellant alleges teaches away from the
alleged missing features. The claims and specification are silent
as to the experience feedback necessarily being read as feedback
received from experience mechanics. It is noted that the rest of
Appellant's arguments in regards to experience feedback is silent
to this definition of experience feedback. For these reasons,
Kipersztok and Wikipedia do not teach away from the alleged
missing features.
(Ans. 7) (emphases added).
Appellants contend:
As submitted by Appellant in the Appeal Brief,
Kipersztok's teaching of defining probability of failure by an
associated rank and defining feedback by an outcome of tests
ranked with priority, and Kipersztok's discouragement of using
feedback from certain mechanics, teaches away from the
specifically claimed computing probability based on experience
feedback, where experience feedback is defined by a number of
16
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
inputs corresponding to a number of instances of said inputs, and
by a threshold number of said inputs.
(Reply Br. 12).
We disagree with Appellants and find the Kipersztok reference
discloses determination of probability based upon "experience feedback" in
the process.
We note "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative
does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because
such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
solution claimed ... . "In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(emphasis added). Appellants do not specifically identify any disclosure in
the Kipersztok reference which criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages the solution claimed. As a result, Appellants' argument does
not show error in the Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of
obviousness of representative independent claim 1.
As a result, Appellants' arguments does not show error in the
Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of representative
independent claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1---6, 8, and 9 as directed to
patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but the Examiner did
not err in rejecting claims 1---6, 8, and 9 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combination of the four prior art references.
17
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1---6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1---6, 8, and 9 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(f).
AFFIRMED
18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PATRICE BOUCHER and NICOLAS WACYK
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 176
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge, Dissenting-in-part.
OPINION DISSENTING-IN-PART
I respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion with respect to the
Examiner's final rejections of claims 1-6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. I
would affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8, and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Following the two-part Alice analysis, representative claim 1 is first
examined to determine if it is directed toward an abstract idea. See Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355. Claim 1 is directed to method steps of providing a
database, detecting a fault, looking up a list of items and probabilities in the
database, identifying an item of equipment, and updating, sending, and
erasing the contents of a database. In particular, claim 1 describes
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
"providing an onboard aircraft database," which has at least one entry
associating a fault identifier with a list of at least one item liable to be a
cause of the identified fault, and "a probability of the corresponding cause of
the identified fault, for each item of the list of said at least one item, that a
corresponding item is the cause of said identified fault," which is existing
information in a database. As our reviewing court recently reiterated,
"organizing and accessing records through the creation of an index-
searchable database, includes longstanding conduct that existed well before
the advent of computers and the Internet." Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Claim 1 further recites using a detector to detect a fault, using a
generic processor to access information in a database, using a processor to
identify an item of equipment "actually being the cause of said detected
fault," and using a generic processor to update a temporary database, send its
contents to a remote ground database, erase the temporary database, and
determine the probability of the corresponding cause of the identified fault
based on "experience feedback being defined by a number of inputs
corresponding to a number of instances of said inputs, and by a threshold
number of said inputs." Here, determining the probability amounts to using
a mathematical algorithm to manipulate existing information to generate
additional information. "Without additional limitations, a process that
employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to
generate additional information is not patent eligible." Digitech Image
Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2014). Thus, I agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to
2
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
manipulating existing data and is therefore directed to an abstract idea. See
Final Act. 5.
The second part of the Alice analysis requires an examination of the
claim elements individually and as a whole to determine whether they
provide an "inventive concept" that is enough to transform the claim into
something significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice, 134 S.
Ct. at 2355. With regard to claim 1, in addition to accessing existing
information and manipulating it using a generic processor, the claim requires
"a detector," and "a diagnostic device that performs computer-readable
instructions using a processor for executing the steps of the method." Taken
individually, the remaining limitations recite routine computer functions and
amount to no more than the performance of well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities in known to the industry. Thus, while the claims
limit the idea of data retrieval and manipulation to a device with a processor,
the claimed computer functionality is merely generic or conventional. Thus,
evaluating these claimed elements either individually or as a whole, claim 1
recites no more than routine activities involving generic computer
components and conventional computer data processing activities to
accomplish the well-known concept of accessing and manipulating data. As
such, the remaining limitations are abstract and fail to transform the claim
into something sufficiently more than an abstract idea.
Thus, I agree with the Examiner that, because the elements of claim 1
do not provide an "inventive concept" that is enough to transform the claim
into something significantly more than the abstract idea, claim 1 is patent-
ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Ans. 2-5.
3
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
Independent claim 8 recites limitations similar to those in claim 1, but
is directed to "a device comprising a computer configured for assisting the
maintenance of a system of [an] aircraft." Independent claim 9 also recites
limitations similar to those in claim 1, but is directed to "[a]n aircraft
comprising a device comprising a computer configured for assisting the
maintenance of a system of the aircraft." For the reasons discussed above,
claims 8 and 9 are also directed to an abstract idea, and the remaining
limitations are abstract and fail to transform the claim into something
sufficiently more than an abstract idea.
Claims 2---6 depend from claim 1. Claim 2 further recites "further
comprising a step of sending maintenance information of the aircraft from
said onboard temporary database to said remote ground database." Claim 3
further recites "wherein said step of determining the probability that the item
considered is the cause of said detected fault is carried out during a
diagnostic step." Claim 4 further recites "wherein said step of determining
the probability that the item considered is the cause of said detected fault is
carried out during a dynamic trouble-shooting step." Claim 5 further recites
"further comprising receiving data from several temporary databases stored
in other systems of the aircraft and updating said remote ground database,
said step of updating said remote ground database being carried out in a
separate system on the ground." Claim 6 further depends from claim 5 and
further recites "wherein said remote ground database includes data relative
to different types of aircraft."
For the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1, claims 2---6 are
directed to an abstract idea, and the remaining limitations are abstract and
4
Appeal2017-003484
Application 14/162, 17 6
fail to transform the claim into something sufficiently more than an abstract
idea.
5