Ex Parte BoveyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 15, 201612937490 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation