Ex Parte Hayner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2018

12838633 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/838,633 07/19/2010
53364 7590 07/31/2018
TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP
NXP
6501 William Cannon Drive West
AUSTIN, TX 78735
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David A. Hayner
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.
RA48501ZS 6708
EXAMINER
NGHIEM, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2862
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2018 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID A. HAYNER
Appeal2017-009701
Application 12/838,633
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-13, 17, 18, and 21-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of September 7,
2016 (Spec.), Final Office Action of July 14, 2016 (Final), Appeal Brief of
March 3, 2017 (Appeal Br.), Examiner's Answer of May 8, 2017 (Ans.), and
Reply Brief of July 7, 2017 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NXP USA, Inc. Appeal Br.
1.
Appeal2017-009701
Application 12/838,633
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The claims are directed to a packaged multi-sensor device (see, e.g.,
claims 1 and 21-24) and a method of validating a first measurement value
(see, e.g., claim 13).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims directed to the packaged multi-
sensor device:
1. A packaged multi-sensor device for measuring and
validating one or more inertial signals, comprising:
a plurality of sensors arranged to measure at least first,
second, and third inertial signals in different domains, the
plurality of sensors comprising
a first Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems
(MEMS) sensor device for measuring the first inertial
signal in a first domain,
a second MEMS sensor device for measuring the
second inertial signal in a second different domain, and
a third MEMS sensor device for measuring the
third inertial signal in a third different domain; and
a processing unit for generating first and second
estimated values for the first inertial signal based on,
respectively, the second and third inertial signals, and for
comparing the first and second estimated values for the first
inertial signal to the first inertial signal in order to validate the
first inertial signal,
where the processing unit generates the first estimated
value by computing a first estimated x-axis linear acceleration
value from the second inertial signal which comprises a
measured roll angular velocity value nx, and
where the processing unit generates the second estimated
value by computing a second estimated x-axis linear
2
Appeal2017-009701
Application 12/838,633
acceleration value from the third inertial signal which
comprises a measured y-axis linear acceleration value.
Appeal Br. 16 (claims appendix) (formatting added).
Claim 13 is illustrative of the claims directed to a method of
validating a first measured value:
13. A method for validating a first measured value
associated with a platform without using external reference
information, comprising:
measuring a plurality of inertial values in a plurality of
domains, comprising a first measured value in a first domain
and at least a second measured value in a second different
domain, by:
reading a y-axis acceleration signal value Ay from
a first linear accelerometer sensor;
reading a z-axis acceleration signal value Az from
a second linear accelerometer sensor; and
reading a roll angular velocity signal value Ox
from one or more gyro sensors;
transforming at least the second measured value in the
second different domain into a first estimated value in the first
domain by calculating a first estimated y-axis acceleration
signal value Ay1 using the roll angular velocity signal value Ox,
and calculating a second estimated y-axis acceleration signal
value Ay2 using the z-axis acceleration signal value Az; and
comparing the first and second estimated y-axis
acceleration signal values to the y-axis acceleration signal value
Ay measured from the first linear accelerometer sensor to assess
a validity measure for the y-axis acceleration signal value Ay.
Appeal Br. 19 ( claims appendix).
3
Appeal2017-009701
Application 12/838,633
OPINION
We agree with the Examiner that the method claims are directed to
non-statutory subject matter because they do not amount to significantly
more than an abstract idea embodied in a mathematical algorithm run on a
computer processing unit. Final 3-6; Ans. 2-12. However, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner failed to adequately consider the combination
of sensors within the package in the combination when determining the
device claims were non-statutory. Appeal Br. 9-10. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claims 13, 17, and 18, but we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-12, and 21-25. Our reasons follow.
35 U.S.C. § 101 states that "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any
new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to
the conditions and requirements of this title." But even if a claim at first
blush appears to be directed to one of the statutory classes of invention listed
in § 101, it may be not eligible for a patent. "Phenomena of nature, though
just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not
patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work."
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70-72
(2012) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981) (quoting
Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Thus, a claim that due to the
drafting efforts of the applicant appears to fit into one of the statutory
classes, but, in fact, would wholly pre-empt others from making and using
4
Appeal2017-009701
Application 12/838,633
the basic tools of scientific and technological work is not patentable. Alice
Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354--55, 57 (2014).
In Alice, the Court extended a framework that had been used in Mayo
for distinguishing claims pre-empting laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from claims amounting to patent-eligible applications of
those concepts. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. As stated in Alice:
First, we determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we
then ask, "what else is there in the claims before us?" To
answer that question, we consider the elements of each claim
both individually and as an ordered combination to determine
whether the additional elements transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application. We have described step
two of this analysis as a search for an "inventive concept"-i.e.,
an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal quotations marks and citations to Mayo
omitted).
Because "at some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon,
or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas," one must take
care to strike the correct balance when considering the question of patent
eligibility. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Alice analysis begins with the question: "whether the claims at
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
This "first-stage filter is a meaningful one, sometimes ending the § 101
inquiry." Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). "[T]he 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter
5
Appeal2017-009701
Application 12/838,633
to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their
character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet
Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir.
2015)).
One way to determine what a claim is "directed to" is to focus on the
claimed advance over the prior art. Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.,
818 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The advance cannot wholly reside in
patent-ineligible concepts themselves such as mathematical formulas and
algorithms. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591 (1978) ("The process
itself, not merely the mathematical algorithm, must be new and useful.").
The advance must be an improvement in some combination of structures or
processing steps employing the algorithm such that the apparatus or process
as a whole is improved.
We first consider claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a packaged multi-
sensor device that includes three MEMS sensor devices and a processing
unit. Each of the three MEMS sensor devices measures inertial signals in
different domains. The Specification describes the sensor devices as
measuring inertial effects, such as linear acceleration in a given direction
(e.g., x-axis, y-axis, z-axis directions) and roll angular velocity. Spec. ,r 9.
Thus, we interpret claim 1 as measuring these types of inertial effects. The
inertial signals from the inertial effects include a measured roll angular
velocity value (second inertial signal) and a measured y-axis linear
acceleration value (third inertial signal). Claim 1 ("where" clauses). By
implication, the second and third sensors are those that measure roll angular
6
Appeal2017-009701
Application 12/838,633
velocity, such as a gyroscope, and y-axis linear acceleration, such as a y-axis
accelerometer.
The three sensors gather data that is used in the processing unit. What
occurs in the processing unit amounts to a procedure for solving
mathematical problems, which the courts have called an algorithm, and
which is in the realm of an abstract idea. Flook, 437 U.S. at 589. The
question is whether the combination of sensors and processing unit in a
package add something more such that the claim does not pre-empt others
from using the algorithm itself. One way to consider the question is to
consider the level of integration between the structures of the device and the
abstract idea and the improvement that results.
The claims in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) provide an
example of an instance where the claims as a whole were not directed to an
abstract idea, but improved a process as a whole.
Diehr 's claims were directed to a method of operating a rubber-
molding press. Id. at 177 n.2 (1981 ). Diehr characterized the improvement
as residing in the process of constantly measuring the actual temperature
inside the mold, recalculating the ideal cure time, and automatically opening
the press when the ideal cure time equaled the actual time elapsed. Id. at
178-79. Although Diehr 's claims employed a mathematical formula
(Arrhenius equation) that was run on a programmed digital computer, the
claims in Diehr covered patent-eligible subject matter because they did not
pre-empt the use of the equation, but only foreclosed others from applying
that equation with all the other steps in their claimed process: Steps of
"installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly determining the
7
Appeal2017-009701
Application 12/838,633
temperature of the mold, constantly recalculating the appropriate cure time
through the use of the formula and a digital computer, and automatically
opening the press at the proper time." Id. at 187. The Court explained that
claims are patent eligible under § 101 "when a claim containing a
mathematical formula implements or applies that formula in a structure or
process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which
the patent laws were designed to protect." Id. at 192.
Like Die hr' s claims, Appellant's claim 1 is directed to an
improvement that does not just reside in a mathematical formula or
algorithm. Appellant's improvement is in an apparatus that performs a
function that the patent laws were designed to protect: An apparatus that
measures inertial effects. The improvement is to the arrangement of the
sensors along with the use of sensors to validate information of a different
sensor.
That the improvement is to the arrangement of the sensors along with
the validation technique becomes clear when one considers the disclosure of
the improvement within the written description of the Specification. The
written description explains that "inertial sensors may be formed with
MEMS devices on an integrated circuit wafer substrate to form various
applications, such as a MEMS gyroscope that is used to detect the rate of
change of a position variable (e.g., angular position) for an object, or a
MEMS linear accelerometer that is used to measure the rate of increase or
decrease in the velocity of an object." Spec. ,r 2. According to the
Specification, conventional methods of validating inertial sensor data used
redundant sensors and/or correlations with alternative external
8
Appeal2017-009701
Application 12/838,633
measurements, e.g., using external wheel speed and wheel angle sensors
external to a MEMS gyroscope sensor in a vehicle. Id. Using sensors
positioned around a vehicle introduces errors and delays in the data from the
sensors. Id. Appellant packages all the necessary sensors in one package
with the processing unit and uses a prediction algorithm to validate the
sensor data without the need to gather data from external sensors. Spec. ,r 9.
Thus, the improvement is not in the algorithm alone, but in the combination
of providing the sensors in the package with the processing unit and using
those internal sensors to validate each other.
Claim 1 is specific enough and directed to the improvement. Thus,
we determine it does not pre-empt the algorithm itself, but only the specific
combination of sensors with the processing unit in a package as required by
the claim. Claims 21-24 are analogously limited to a packaged multi-sensor
device. Thus, we determine that claims 1 and 21-24, plus those dependent
therefrom, are directed to statutory subject matter.
Claim 13 is not directed to a packaged multi-sensor device. Claim 13
is directed to a method for validating a numerical value. The steps of the
process amount to data gathering from known types of sensors and using
mathematical algorithms to manipulate the data (transforming measured
values into estimated values and comparing estimated values to measured
values to assess the validity of the measured value). The claim does not
require the sensors to be within a package. The improvement is wholly to
the algorithm and a patent to this claim would pre-empt the use of the
algorithm itself. It does not contain the additional elements that transform
the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application that claims 1 and
9
Appeal2017-009701
Application 12/838,633
21-24 contain. Thus, we determine that claim 13 is directed to non-statutory
subject matter.
In summary:
1--4, 6-13, 17,
18,21-25
§ 101
CONCLUSION
1--4, 6-12, 21-25 13, 17, 18
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10