Ex Parte Bovey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 15, 2016

12937490 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/937,490 12/27/2010
24222 7590 07119/2016
Maine Cernota & Rardin
547 Amherst Street
3rd Floor
Nashua, NH 03063
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Lee Bovey
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.
XA3013-US 2706
EXAMINER
SWARTZ, STEPHENS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2016 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):
patents@mcr-ip.com
dwitmer@mcr-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD LEE BOVEY
Appeal2014-003626 1
Application 12/937 ,4902
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 11-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
September 3, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed January 22, 2014),
and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed November 21, 2013) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed January 22, 2013).
2 Appellant identifies BAE Systems PLC as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003626
Application 12/937 ,490
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention "relates to assisting failure diagnosis in
a system" (Spec. 1, 1. 2).
Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
11. A method for assisting failure diagnosis in a system
having a processor, an input device, and an interface, the method
compnsmg:
receiving data through the input device, the data including
a probabilistic Bayesian Network describing a set of failures and
a set of symptoms:
for at least some of the symptoms the processor executing
a method including:
obtaining a cost value representing a cost associated
with learning of a presence or absence of some of the
symptoms;
obtaining a plurality of information values
associated with some of the symptoms, and determining
which symptom among some of the symptoms that would
be most beneficial to inspect based on the cost value and
the plurality of information values, the plurality of
information values representing measures of information
gained by learning of presence or absence of a respective
symptom in relation to a respective plurality of failures
associated with the respective symptom, and wherein the
computing the information-for-cost value includes:
summing the information values of said
respective symptom to provide a sum; and
dividing the sum by the cost value of the
respective symptom; and
identifying through the interface, the respective
symptom to be inspected based on the determination.
2
Appeal2014-003626
Application 12/937 ,490
REJECTION
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kipersztok (US 7,209,814 B2, iss. Apr. 24, 2007), Official Notice, and
Dahlquist (US 2005/0049988 Al, pub. Mar. 3, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12-15
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Kipersztok, on which
the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest "obtaining a cost value
representing a cost associated with learning of a presence or absence of
some of the symptoms," as recited in claim 11 (App. Br. 6-7; see also Reply
Br. 1--4).
Kipersztok is directed to a diagnostic system and method for enabling
multistage decision optimization in aircraft preflight dispatch, and discloses
that the system includes an interface for receiving one or more inputs
relating to observed symptoms indicative of a failed component in an aircraft
(Kipersztok, Abstract). Kipersztok discloses that, based on the one or more
observed symptoms, the diagnostic system, implementing a Bayesian
network, can identify one or more suspect components whose failure may
have caused the observed symptom(s); the diagnostic system also can
identify one or more tests that may be conducted to refine the identification
of the suspect components and the relative probability that a particular
suspect component caused the problem with the aircraft (id. at col. 9, 11. 25-
45). Based on the respective probabilities of failure of the suspect
components, the diagnostic system creates prioritized listings of the suspect
components and tests that could be conducted to refine the identification and
3
Appeal2014-003626
Application 12/937 ,490
prioritization of the suspect components (id. at col. 9, 1. 62 - col. 10, 1. 3).
Kipersztok discloses that although the prioritized listings readily allow
capable aircraft personnel to determine appropriate maintenance actions for
the aircraft, in order to eliminate or at least substantially reduce the risk that
performance of the maintenance actions, as determined by the aircraft
personnel, will exceed one or more of the preflight dispatch variables, e.g.,
cost functions, cost limits and time deadlines, the diagnostic system
determines the optimal maintenance action in a way that specifically
accounts for the variables associated with aircraft preflight dispatch (id.
at col. 10, 11. 3-20).
Citing column 11, lines 11-33 of Kipersztok, the Examiner takes the
position in the Final Office Action that Kipersztok "teaches a cost equation
that takes into account the absence of a fault (i.e.[,] symptom)" and, thus,
discloses "obtaining a cost value representing a cost associated with learning
of a presence or absence of the symptom" (Final Act. 5 (emphasis omitted)).
We agree with Appellant, however, that rather than determining the costs
associated with learning of the presence or absence of a symptom,
Kipersztok discloses that upon observing a symptom, i.e., learning of its
presence, an analysis is performed to identify and prioritize tests that can be
performed to identify and prioritize suspect components causing the
symptom (Reply Br. 2). A person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand from Kipersztok, specifically including the disclosure at
column 9, line 63 through column 10, line 20, that the costs calculated by
Kipersztok relate to the costs of performing one or more maintenance
actions to repair a particular component, not to the costs of determining the
4
Appeal2014-003626
Application 12/937 ,490
presence or absence of one or more symptoms of a component failure (App.
Br. 5---6).
Responding to Appellant's arguments in the Answer, the Examiner
asserts that determining what tests to be performed (which the Examiner
reasons also affects the cost of repair), and determining what repairs to be
performed based on the testing, is "seen as the learning of the presence or
absence of the symptom" (Ans. 5). This interpretation, however, is contrary
to the Examiner's own interpretation of the term "symptom," as a sign or
indication of a condition or situation (see id.). Moreover, the costs referred
to in Kipersztok, and in the several examples provided in the Answer, 3 relate
to costs of determining what caused a symptom, not to the costs of learning
of the presence or absence of a symptom, as called for in claim 11.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 12-15, which depend from
claim 11. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
3 For example, the Examiner asserts:
When a person brings their car in for service there may be some
indication such as a warning light that and a driver gets
concerned or a pilot notices that one of his/her gauges in his/her
plane are not reading correctly. At this point something is not
right, but the exact cause is not known so the person brings their
vehicle in for maintenance. At this point there is a plethora of
things that could be wrong and it is well understood that there
will be a cost for a technician to determine the problem. So in
this regard there is a fault or a symptom that indicates a problem
and to further determine the exact symptom work needs to be
performed which costs money.
(Ans. 6).
5
Appeal2014-003626
Application 12/937 ,490
("dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which
they depend are nonobvious").
Independent claims 16 and 17
Independent claims 16 and 1 7 include language substantially similar
to the language of claim 11, and stand rejected based on the same rationale
applied with respect to claim 11. Final Act. 9-10. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 11.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 11-17 under 35 U .S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
REVERSED
6