Ex Parte Kautzsch

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2017

13249586 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2017)

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