Ex Parte Dooley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 2019

13988238 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/988,238 05/17/2013 Vince Dooley 22850 7590 02/27/2019 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 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. 504714US 5024 EXAMINER PARK,HYUND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2019 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): patentdocket@oblon.com OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM iahmadi@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VINCE DOOLEY, YOSHIHIKO OKAY AMA, SHINSUKE MATSUNAGA, and ICHIRO MITSUTAKE Appeal2018-004337 Application 13/988,238 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 seek our review of the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--9, and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Azbil Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2018-004337 Application 13/988,238 SUBJECT MATTER The subject matter on appeal relates to "an electromagnetic flow meter that measures the flow of an electrically conductive fluid." Spec. ,r 1. During operation, foreign matter may adhere to the electrodes of the flow meter, leading to noise that affects the signal electromagnetic frequency, after which "it will no longer be possible to accurately measure the flow of the fluid." Id. ,r 4. The Specification indicates that "if a function that automatically detects whether foreign matter is adhered to the electrodes (i.e., an electrode scaling detection function) is added to the electromagnetic flow meter, then removing the foreign matter can be performed in a timely manner, thereby improving the utility of the electromagnetic flow meter." Id. ,r 5. Prior art systems that have such an automatic detection function are stated to have problems, however, such as i) a risk of misdiagnosing whether foreign matter is actually attached to the electrodes, ii) complicated system arrangement, and iii) the inability to extract "the noise of the frequency components that arises owing to the adherence of foreign matter to the electrodes." Id. ,r,r 10-13. The invention purports to address these problems by providing a "meter that is capable of accurately detecting, with a simple configuration, a state wherein foreign matter is adhered to electrodes." Id. ,I 14. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is copied below: 1. An electromagnetic flow meter, comprising: a measurement tube comprising a flowing fluid: an excitation coil; an excitation current supply supplying an excitation current with an excitation frequency Jex to the excitation coil; a pair of electrodes disposed inside the measurement tube: 2 Appeal2018-004337 Application 13/988,238 a flow meter based on an emf that arises between the electrodes: a first AID converter converting the emf to a digital signal; a sampler sampling the digital signal within a prescribed period; a first integrating calculator calculating as a first integrated value a value calculated by integrating the absolute values of all frequency components of the sample data sampled by the sampler for a prescribed interval; a high frequency components filter extracting frequency components of the frequency components of the sample data sampled by the sampler for the prescribed interval that are greater than or equal to a prescribed frequency, which is higher than the excitation frequency Jex; a second integrating calculator calculating as a second integrated value a value calculated by integrating the absolute values of the extracted frequency components that are greater than or equal to the prescribed frequency; a noise evaluation value calculator calculating, based on at least the sample data sampled by the sampler,[] as a noise evaluation value, the magnitude of the impact of a noise component owing to adherence of foreign matter to the electrodes upon the measurement of the flow, and calculating as a high frequency ratio (HR) the ratio of the second integrated value, which is calculated by the second integrating calculator, to the first integrated value, which is calculated by the first integrating calculator; an electrode scaling diagnostic determining an electrode foreign matter adherence state by comparing the noise evaluation value and a predetermined diagnostic threshold value; and a scaling diagnosis output outputting the determined electrode foreign matter adherence state. App. Br. 17-18. OPINION We review the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 rejection of claims 1, 4--9, and 12-16-the sole rejection on appeal-under the recently published revised guidance governing the application of 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. USPTO's 3 Appeal2018-004337 Application 13/988,238 January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum"). Under that guidance, we first look to determine whether the claims recite: ( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes); and, if so, (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP Â§ 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h)). Applying the guidance to the claims at issue here, we determine that each independent claim 1 and 9 recites multiple abstract ideas - namely the mathematical concept of performing multiple calculations, and the mental process of comparing one value to another "threshold value." For example, claim 1 recites "a first integrating calculator calculating as a first integrated value a value calculated by integrating the absolute values of all frequency components of the sample data sampled by the sampler for a prescribed interval," "a second integrating calculator calculating as a second integrated value a value calculated by integrating the absolute values of the extracted frequency components that are greater than or equal to the prescribed frequency," "a noise evaluation calculator" that performs calculations to arrive at a "noise evaluation value" and a "high frequency ratio (HR)." App. Br. 17-18. Thus, claim 1 requires conducting various mathematical calculations - a fact that is acknowledged by Appellants. App. Br. 11 ("Claim 1 requires the calculation of two integrated values ... and then determining the ratio of the two integrated values."). Similar calculations are recited in independent claim 9. App. Br. 20-21. 4 Appeal2018-004337 Application 13/988,238 Moreover, claims 1 and 9 also require a comparison of one value (i.e., "the noise evaluation value") to another "predetermined threshold diagnostic threshold value." Such comparison is one that can be performed in the human mind. Because each of the independent claims recites multiple abstract ideas, we now determine whether the claims integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application, and are, thus, patent eligible under Â§ 101. Upon review of the Specification, as well as Appellant's arguments set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, we determine that the claims are directed to improving an electromagnetic flow meter's capability of accurately detecting whether foreign matter is adhered to the electrodes of the flow meter, and are thus patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. See MPEP Â§ 2106.05(a). Here, the Specification informs us of what is purportedly required to "provide an electromagnetic flow meter that is capable of accurately detecting, with a simple configuration, a state wherein foreign matter is adhered to electrodes." Spec. ,r,r 14--15. Specifically, in addition to components such as a measurement tube, excitation coil, excitation current supplying means, and a pair of electrodes, the Specification lists an analog to digital (i.e., "AID") converter, sampling means, noise evaluation value calculating means which calculates a certain "noise evaluation value" from collected sample data, and an electrode scaling diagnosing means which compares calculated values to a threshold value to "determine[] an electrode foreign matter adherence state." Id. ,r 15. The Specification details the mathematical calculations involving the sample data, including calculating "a first integrated value" by "integrating the absolute values of all frequency 5 Appeal2018-004337 Application 13/988,238 components of the sample data," calculating a "second integrated value" by "integrating the absolute values of the extracted frequency components that are greater than or equal to the prescribed frequency," calculating a high frequency ratio (HR) and comparing that ratio to a diagnostic threshold value. Id. ,r 18. By carrying out these calculations, and determining whether the electrodes have foreign matter adhered thereto, the claimed electromagnetic flow meter "purport[ s] to improve the functioning of ... the technical field" of electromagnetic flow meters. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208,225 (2014); Spec. ,r,r 5, 14--18. In view of such purported improvements, and because the specific techniques for realizing such purported improvements are recited in each independent claim 1 and 9, we determine that the claims integrate the abstract ideas recited therein into a practical application. It follows, then, that these claims and the claims dependent therefrom are patent eligible. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--9, and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. DECISION We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 4--9, and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. REVERSED 6