Ex Parte KautzschDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 201713249586 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/249,586 09/30/2011 Thoralf Kautzsch 42792-0351 1029 38881 7590 Infineon Technologies AG c/o Schiff Hardin LLP 666 Fifth Avenue Suite 1700 NEW YORK, NY 10103 EXAMINER PEREZ BERMUDEZ, YARITZA H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2864 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2017 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): lbrutman @ schiffhardin.com patents-NY @ schiffhardin.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THORALF KAUTZSCH Appeal 2017-004003 Application 13/249,586 Technology Center 2800 Before MARKNAGUMO, GEORGE C. BEST, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—2, 4—17, and 19—26 of Application 13/249,586 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. (March 4, 2016) 2—7. Appellant1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Infineon Technologies AG is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017-004003 Application 13/249,586 BACKGROUND The present application generally relates to tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS). Spec. 1. The Specification teaches a method of determining an acceleration sensor profile for each of a plurality of wheels of a vehicle, wherein the profile defines at least an axis of orientation of the acceleration sensor relative to the wheel; receiving a first acceleration data signal from at least one wheel module located on a first side of the vehicle and a second acceleration data signal from at least one wheel module located on a second side of the vehicle; determining a zero-acceleration point between the first and second acceleration data signals; and partially localizing, by identifying the location relative to the first and second sides, each of the wheel modules based on at least an evaluation of the acceleration sensor profile and the data signals. Id. at 2—3. Claims 1,12, and 17 are representative of the pending claims and are reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: determining an acceleration sensor profile for each of a plurality of wheels of a vehicle, wherein the profile defines at least an axis of orientation of the acceleration sensor relative to the wheel; receiving a first acceleration data signal from at least one wheel module located on a first side of the vehicle and a second acceleration data signal from at least one wheel module located on a second side of the vehicle; determining a zero-acceleration point between the first and second acceleration data signals, and using the zero- acceleration point to determine a presence or an absence of an offset error related to at least one wheel module, wherein using the zero-acceleration point to determine a presence or an absence of an offset error comprises: 2 Appeal 2017-004003 Application 13/249,586 determining an offset between the received first and second acceleration data signals as modulated by gravity; and determining a difference in the offset between the first and second acceleration data signals from the determined zero acceleration point in order to determine a magnitude of acceleration; and partially localizing, by identifying the location relative to the first and second sides, each of the wheel modules based on at least an evaluation of the acceleration sensor profile and the first and second acceleration data signals. 12. A system comprising: a plurality of wheel modules, each wheel module associated with a wheel of a vehicle and comprising an acceleration sensor configured to sense acceleration related to the wheel, wherein each acceleration sensor has a uniform acceleration sensor placement relative to the wheel, and each acceleration sensor has an acceleration sensor profile defining at least an axis of orientation of the acceleration sensor relative to the wheel such that wheels on opposite sides of the vehicle have opposite axes of orientation; and a central receiver unit configured to receive signals from the plurality of wheel modules, the signals comprising acceleration data sensed by the acceleration sensor, and to partially localize each wheel of the vehicle by evaluating the received signals relative to the acceleration sensor profile and identifying at least one zero-acceleration point between the received signals, wherein the at least one zero-acceleration point can be used to determine whether an offset error from the uniform acceleration sensor placement relative to the wheel of at least one of the plurality of wheel modules has occurred, wherein the identifying the zero-acceleration point comprises: determining an offset between the received signals as modulated by gravity; and determining a difference in the offset between the received signals from the at least one zero acceleration point in order to determine a magnitude of acceleration. 3 Appeal 2017-004003 Application 13/249,586 17. A wheel module, the wheel module associated with a wheel of a vehicle, comprising: an acceleration sensor configured to sense acceleration related to the wheel, the sensed acceleration being oscillated by gravity when the wheel is in motion, and the acceleration sensor having an acceleration sensor profile defining at least an axis of orientation of the acceleration sensor relative to the wheel; a communications unit configured to receive acceleration data from a second wheel module; a microcontroller configured to accumulate data from the acceleration sensor and partially localize the wheel module relative to the second wheel module based on the acceleration sensor profile and the accumulated sensor data, wherein the microcontroller is further configured to determine a zero- acceleration point between the accumulated acceleration sensor data and the second wheel module acceleration data and determine an offset error between the accumulated acceleration sensor data and the second wheel module acceleration data, wherein the determining the zero-acceleration point comprises: determining an offset between the accumulated acceleration sensor data and the second wheel module acceleration data as modulated by gravity; and determining a difference in the offset between the accumulated acceleration sensor data and the second wheel module acceleration data from the determined zero acceleration point in order to determine a magnitude of acceleration; and a power source configured to provide power to at least the acceleration sensor, microcontroller, and communications unit. Appeal Br. 16, 18—20 (Claims App.). 4 Appeal 2017-004003 Application 13/249,586 REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection: Claims 1—2, 4—17, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2—7. DISCUSSION Section 101 defines the scope of patent-eligible subject matter as “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.†35 U.S.C. § 101. To this broad universe of eligible subject matter, the Supreme Court has long-recognized an exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible because they represent “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.†Ass ’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012)). Permitting patent protection for these ideas could thwart the purpose of the patent laws because it “might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.†Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLSBankInt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71). The “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts†comprises two steps. Id. at 2355. The first step requires us to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.†Id. If they are, we must then analyze whether the claim elements, either individually or as an ordered combination, contain an “inventive concept†that “‘transform[s] the nature 5 Appeal 2017-004003 Application 13/249,586 of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.†Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72, 78). The Federal Circuit has held that “methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas.†CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Similarly, the same court has indicated that “we continue to treat analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.†Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146-47 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). The Federal Circuit has likewise determined claims to be directed to an abstract idea where “[t]he focus of the asserted claims ... is on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.†Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (2016). Claims 1 and 7 The Examiner determined that claims 1 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea. In regard to claim 1, the Examiner found as follows: Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of determining a zero-acceleration point between the first and second acceleration data signals, and using the zero acceleration point to determine a presence or an absence of an offset error related to at least one wheel module, determining an offset between the received first and second acceleration data signals as modulated by gravity, and determining a difference in the offset between the first and second acceleration data signals from the determined zero acceleration point in order to determine a magnitude of acceleration, and partially localizing, by identifying the location relative to the first and second sides, each of the wheel modules 6 Appeal 2017-004003 Application 13/249,586 based on at least an evaluation of the acceleration sensor profile and the first and second acceleration data signals. Final Act. 2—3. Appellant argues that these method claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Appellant argues that the claims “are directed to receiving acceleration data signals from wheel modules, and identifying locations of the wheel modules†and that such steps are “tied to the real world.†Appeal Br. 7. We adopt the Examiner’s analysis regarding the first step of the Alice inquiry as set forth in the Answer. See Answer 4. The collection and analysis of information is typically an abstract process. Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1353—54. Moreover, courts have determined a number of claims with “real world†applications to be abstract. See, e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) (determining a claim relating to alarm limits for catalytic converters to be abstract). Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that the claim is directed to abstract matter. The second step of the Alice inquiry requires that we determine whether the claim elements, either individually or as an ordered combination, contain an inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Appellant argues that the methods of claims 1 and 7 are significantly more than an abstract idea because such methods are “performed by a particular machine or apparatus as the steps of receiving, determining, and partially localizing cannot be performed in one’s mind or manually without the use of any type of device or machine.†Appeal Br. 8. “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to 7 Appeal 2017-004003 Application 13/249,586 monopolize the [abstract idea].’†Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2357 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77 (2012)) (alterations in original). Those “additional features†must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.†Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80. In this regard, the Examiner determines as follows: the only additional elements are determining an acceleration sensor profile for each of a plurality of wheels of a vehicle, wherein the profile defines at least an axis of orientation sensor relative to the wheel, receivins a first acceleration data sisnal from at least one wheel module located on the first side of the vehicle and a second acceleration data signal from at least one wheel module located on a second side of the vehicle, which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity using conventional equipment. Answer 4—5 (emphasis in original). Appellant’s contentions that the foregoing steps are performed by a particular machine and cannot be performed mentally without some type of device are inadequate to rebut the Examiner’s determination regarding step II of the Alice analysis. Moreover, a “wheel module†and sides of a vehicle are well known, routine components of any tire pressure monitoring system. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 7. Appellant additionally argues that the rejections of the claims depending from claims 1 and 7 should be reversed for the same reasons as with regard to the independent claims. Appeal Br. 8. As Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 7 have been found not to be persuasive, the rejections of claims 2 and 4—11 will not be disturbed. 8 Appeal 2017-004003 Application 13/249,586 Claims 12, 17, and 23 The Examiner additionally determined claims 12 (to a system), 17 (to a wheel module), and 23 (to a wheel module) to be directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 4—7. The Examiner determined that each of these claims is directed to an abstract idea in a manner similar to claim 1. Id. In addition, the Examiner determined that the claims lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. Claim 12 is to a system that requires wheel modules associated with a wheel, where the wheel module includes an acceleration sensor. Appeal Br. 18—19 (Claims App.). Claim 12 further includes a limitation directed to placement of the sensor and requires that the central receiver unit (CRU) receive signals from the wheel modules and determine the offset error. Id. Claims 17 and 23 are each directed to a wheel module that includes an acceleration sensor, a communications unit, a microcontroller, and a power source. Id. at 19-22. With regard to step one of the Alice inquiry, we agree with the Examiner that these claims are directed, in part, to an abstract idea as the several evaluation and determination steps are the mere collection and analysis of information. Step two requires us to determine if the additional elements of the claims impart patent eligibility. Viewing each of claims 12, 17, and 23 in its entirety, we determine that each is an ordered combination of physical elements that amounts to something more than an abstract idea. The interrelationship of the limitations indicates that the claims are not to abstract ideas in isolation but rather those relations impose meaningful limits that confine the abstract ideas to a particular technological application. 9 Appeal 2017-004003 Application 13/249,586 Accordingly, Appellant has shown reversible error in the rejection of claims 12, 17, and 23 and claims depending therefrom as directed to ineligible subject matter. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4—11 are affirmed and the rejections of claims 12—17 and 19—26 are reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation