Masayuki Takahama et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2019

12679619 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2019)

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.
12/679,619 03/23/2010 Masayuki Takahama SHP-009 7978
32628 7590 12/30/2019
KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2848
EXAMINER
SATANOVSKY, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2019 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):
docketing@ipfirm.com
office@uspatentagents.com
pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MASAYUKI TAKAHAMA, NAOTAKA MIKAMI,
MASASHI INOUE, and YOSHIYUKI HAMAJI
____________

Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision non-finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–17, 19, 21–
26, 28–38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent ineligible
subject matter. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a plant state monitoring method of
determining whether or not a plant is normally operated, a computer

1 Appellant identify Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, LTD. as the real
party in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

2
program used to monitor the state of a plant, and a plate state monitoring
apparatus (Cl. 1, 5, 7; Spec. ¶ 1).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A plant state monitoring method performed by a plant
state monitoring apparatus, said plant state monitoring
method comprising:
acquiring a quantity of operation state of a gas turbine
power generation plant via at least one sensor which is
provided at the gas turbine power generation plant and
coupled to the plant state monitoring apparatus, the quantity
of operation state comprising a rotation speed of a gas turbine
in the gas turbine power generation plant;
storing the acquired quantity of operation state of the
gas turbine power generation plant in a storage unit of the
plant state monitoring apparatus;
determining, by a processing unit of the plant state
monitoring apparatus, that the gas turbine power generation
plant is in a start operation period when the rotation speed is
greater than or equal to a lower limit rotation speed and less
than a rated rotation speed, and determining that the gas
turbine power generation plant is in a load operation period
when the rotation speed is greater than or equal to the rated
rotation speed, the lower limit rotation speed indicating that
the gas turbine is started up, and the rated rotation speed
indicating that the gas turbine has started a rated speed
operation;
creating, by the processing unit, a first unit space,
which is a set of data serving as a standard for determining
whether or not the operation state of the gas turbine power
generation plant during the start operation period is normal,
based on the quantity of operation state of the gas turbine
power generation plant during the start operation period;
creating, by the processing unit, a second unit space,
which is a set of data serving as a standard for determining
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

3
whether or not the operation state of the gas turbine power
generation plant during the load operation period is normal,
based on the quantity of operation state of the gas turbine
power generation plant during the load operation period;
calculating, by the processing unit, a Mahalanobis
distance based on the quantity of operation state of the gas
turbine power generation plant acquired when the operation
state of the gas turbine power generation plant is evaluated;
determining, by the processing unit, whether the
operation state of the gas turbine power generation plant is
normal or abnormal, based on the Mahalanobis distance and
a predetermined threshold value obtained from the first and
second unit spaces; and
in response to a determination that the operation state
of the gas turbine power generation plant is abnormal,
displaying, on a control panel, information relating to
abnormality of the operation state of the gas turbine power
generation plant,
wherein
said creating the first unit space comprises creating the
first unit space based on the quantity of operation state of the
gas turbine power generation plant acquired during a first
period before a first time when the operation state of the gas
turbine power generation plant is evaluated during the start
operation period;
the first period precedes the first time by a
first length of time; the first period shifts along with the first
time;
said creating the second unit space comprises creating
the second unit space based on the quantity of operation state
of the gas turbine power generation plant acquired during a
second period before a second time when the operation state
of the gas turbine power generation plant is evaluated during
the load operation period;
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

4
the second period precedes the second time by a second
length of time; the second period shifts along with the
second time;
said creating the first unit space comprises, in response to
the first time being advanced forward in time,
shifting the first period forward in time corresponding
to the advanced first time,
and
creating the first unit space without considering the
quantity of operation state of the gas turbine power
generation plant that was acquired and used to create the first
unit space before, but no longer falls in the shifted first
period; and
said creating the second unit space comprises, m
response to the second time being advanced forward in time,
shifting the second period forward in time
corresponding to the advanced second time, and
creating the second unit space without considering the
quantity of
operation state of the gas turbine power generation plant that
was acquired and used to create the second unit space before,
but no longer falls in the shifted second period.

The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11–13,
15–17, 19, 21–26, 28–38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent ineligible subject matter. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding the § 101 rejection are located on pages 2 to 8 of the Non-Final
Action and pages 3 to 10 of the Answer.
The Examiner determines that claims 1, 5, and 7 are directed to the
abstract idea of “monitoring an operation state of a gas turbine power
generation plant using an algorithm/ mathematical relationship based on the
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

5
Mahalanobis distance with regards to a rotation speed of the gas turbine
(Non-Final Act. 2). The Examiner finds that the following claim limitations
in bold font are related to the abstract idea:
acquiring a quantity of operation state of a gas turbine
power generation plant via at least one sensor which is provided at
the gas turbine power generation plant and coupled to the plant state
monitoring apparatus, the quantity of operation state comprising a
rotation speed of a gas turbine in the gas turbine power generation
plant:
storing the acquired quantity of operation state of the gas
turbine power generation plant in a storage unit of the plant state
monitoring apparatus;
determining, by a processing unit of the plant state monitoring
apparatus, that the gas turbine power generation plant is in a start
operation period when the rotation speed is greater than or equal
to a lower limit rotation speed and less than a rated rotation
speed, and determining that the gas turbine power generation
plant is in a load operation period when the rotation speed is
greater than or equal to the rated rotation speed, the lower limit
rotation speed indicating that the gas turbine is started up, and
the rated rotation speed indicating that the gas turbine has started
a rated speed operation;
creating, by the processing unit, a first unit space, which is a
set of data serving as a standard for determining whether or not
the operation state of the gas turbine power generation plant
during the start operation period is normal, based on the quantity
of operation state of the gas turbine power generation plant
during the start operation period;
creating, by the processing unit, a second unit space, which is
a set of data serving as a standard for determining whether or not
the operation state of the gas turbine power generation plant
during the load operation period is normal, based on the quantity
of operation state of the gas turbine power generation plant
during the load operation period;
calculating, by the processing unit, a Mahalanobis distance
based on the quantity of operation state of the gas turbine power
generation plant acquired when the operation state of the gas
turbine power generation plant is evaluated;
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

6
determining, by the processing unit, whether the operation state of
the gas turbine power generation plant is normal or abnormal,
based on the Mahalanobis distance and a predetermined
threshold value obtained from the first and second unit spaces;
and
in response to a determination that the operation state of
the gas turbine power generation plant is abnormal, displaying, on
a control panel, information relating to abnormality of the
operation state of the gas turbine power generation plant, wherein
said creating the first unit space comprises creating the first unit
space based on the quantity of operation state of the gas turbine
power generation plant acquired during a first period before a
first time when the operation state of the gas turbine power
generation plant is evaluated during the start operation period;
the first period precedes the first time by a first length of time; the
first period shifts along with the first time;
said creating the second unit space comprises creating the
second unit space based on the quantity of operation state of the
gas turbine power generation plant acquired during a second
period before a second time when the operation state of the gas
turbine power generation plant is evaluated during the load
operation period;
the second period precedes the second time by a second
length of time; the second period shifts along with the second
time;
said creating the first unit space comprises, in response to the first
time being advanced forward in time,
shifting the first period forward in time corresponding to
the advanced first time,
creating the first unit space without considering the
quantity of operation state of the gas turbine power generation
plant that was acquired and used to create the first unit space
before, but no longer falls in the shifted first period;
and
said creating the second unit space comprises, in response to
the second time being advanced forward in time,
shifting the second period forward in time corresponding to
the advanced second time, and
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

7
creating the second unit space without considering the
quantity of operation state of the gas turbine power generation
plant that was acquired and used to create the second unit space
before, but no longer falls in the shifted second period.
(Non-Final Act. 3 to 6).
The Examiner finds that the non-bolded terms in the copy of claim 1
above are “additional elements” (Non-Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds
that the claim recites organizing information through mathematical
correlations and is similar to the facts in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584
(1978) (Non-Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that additional elements in
claim 1 include: a sensor, a processing unit, a display unit, a control panel,
and a storage unit (Non-Final Act. 7). The Examiner finds that these
additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
previously known to the pertinent industry (Non-Final Act. 7). The
Examiner finds that viewed as an ordered combination of elements, these
additional claim elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea
so as to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application (Non-
Final Act. 7). The Examiner finds that these additional elements and/or
steps recite a process or apparatus, but at a high level of generality, and/or
where the process or apparatus is well-understood, routine, and conventional
in the art (Non-Final Act. 7). The Examiner finds that the recitation of a
rotation speed of the turbine, and the gas turbine power generation plant is a
mere field of use (Non-Final Act. 8).
STATEMENT OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

8
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

9
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101.
USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under that guidance, we
first look to whether the claim recites:
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

10
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP §
2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.

OPINION
Step 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s factual findings are flawed from
the outset because the Examiner failed to consider step 1 of the Alice/Mayo
analysis (Appeal Br. 23). Specifically, the Examiner does not find whether
the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition
of matter (Appeal Br. 23).
The Examiner responds that on page 7 of the Non-Final Action, the
Examiner made findings that the claims were directed to an apparatus and
process (Ans. 11). Appellant further contends that the portion referred to by
the Examiner concerns the additional elements, not the initial patent
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

11
eligibility inquiry (i.e., step 1 in the Alice/Mayo analysis) (Reply Br. 8).
Although the Examiner’s analysis seems a bit out of order, we find that the
Examiner considered the claims as a whole and found that the claims were
directed to a process and an apparatus statutory class of invention. The
Examiner would not have applied step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis if the
step 1 was not met. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible
error.
Step 2A Prong 1
Following the Memorandum, we now determine whether the claims
recite a judicial exception. In light of the guidance, we agree with the
Examiner that the claims recites “monitoring an operation state of a gas
turbine power generation plan using [a] . . . mathematical relationship based
on the Mahalanobis distance with regards to a rotation speed of the gas
turbine” (Non-Final Act. 2). The Examiner’s bolding of the claim
limitations that represent the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship is
listed earlier in this decision. Although, Appellant argues that the claims are
not “directed to” an abstract idea in view of McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court’s ultimate
determination is based on what the claim is “directed to” (i.e., a final
conclusion as to the scope of the claim). According to the Memorandum, at
step 2A, prong 1 we decide only if the claim recites a judicial exception. We
find that the Examiner properly finds that the claim’s calculation of a
Mahalanobis distance as part of the algorithm and, thus, recites an abstract
idea of a mathematical relationship. We understand that calculating a
Mahalanobis distance is related to statistical methods for determining the
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

12
distance between a data point and distribution of data, which is based on
mathematical relationships.

Step 2A Prong 2
We next determine if the claim is integrate into a practical application.
Appellant argues that as in the case of McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the present claims do not
recite an abstract idea (Appeal Br. 23). Appellant contends that the steps
recited in claim 1 are directed to an improvement in computer-related
technology (Appeal Br. 25). Appellant argues that the Specification
discloses that the claimed subject matter improves, in non-limiting
embodiments, another technology (i.e., gas turbine power generation)
(Appeal Br. 25). Appellant argues that more than a generic computer is
required to perform the recited functions because the recited activities in the
claim are not previously known to the industry as evident by the lack of a
rejection based on prior art (Appeal Br. 25). The claimed invention allows a
person to accurately determine whether the operation state of a plant is
normal or abnormal when a start operation is performed under operation
conditions different from those when a rated load is applied, and when the
performance of an apparatus decreases over time within an allowable range
(Appeal Br. 25). Appellant contends that claim 1 recites a solution to a
particular problem, as opposed to merely a claim to the idea of a solution or
outcome (Appeal Br. 26). Appellant argues that claim 1 recites a particular
solution based upon sensing the rotation speed of a gas turbine, determining
particular operation periods based upon particular rotation speeds, creating
first/second unit spaces within particular first and second periods that are
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

13
shifted in a particular manner, and calculating a Mahalanobis distance and
determining whether the operation of the gas turbine power generation plant
is normal or abnormal (Appeal Br. 26). Appellant contends that the patent-
ineligible claim in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2016), did not recite any particular parameter for evaluation, or
any particular operation periods or time periods that are determined in a
particular manner unlike the present claims (App. Br. 27).
Appellant argues that like McRO the instant application recites an
ordered combination of claimed steps, using unconventional rules that
improve the computer itself and the claims are not directed to an abstract
idea (Appeal Br. 27). Appellant contends that the unconventional rules
include the “shifting” steps recited in the claim 1 where the first time period
(or second time period) is shifted forward in time corresponding to the
advanced first time (or second time) and then creating a first (or second) unit
space without considering the quantity of operation state of the gas turbine
power generation plant (Appeal Br. 27–28). Appellant argues that the
computer itself is improved by using the unconventional shifting steps in
claim 1 that reduce the storage area necessary for the device and make it
possible to use the computer hardware sources (Appeal Br. 30).
The Examiner finds that the court in McRO found that the claims were
directed to an abstract idea similar to concepts previously found abstract by
the courts (Ans. 17). The Examiner finds that unlike McRO, the current
claims are not directed to an improvement in computer-related technology
(Ans. 17). The Examiner finds that the claims are not focused on the
specific means or method that improves the relevant technology (Ans. 17).
The Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not improve other
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

14
technology because no particular technology or technological process is
recited that would make the claims qualify as “significantly more” than the
abstract idea by reciting features pertinent to such a particular technology or
technological process in a manner analogous to a rubber molding technology
in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (Ans. 13). The Examiner finds
that the facts of this appeal are closest to Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584
(1978) (Ans. 15).
Claim 1 is directed to a method of monitoring a gas turbine power
generation plant that acquires a quantity of operation state variables
comprising the rotation speed of a gas turbine, storing the acquired quantity
of operation state in a storage unit, using a processing unit to determine
whether the plant is in start-up mode or load operation mode based on the
gas turbine rotation speed, creating a first unit space and a second unit space,
which is a set of data used to determine whether the plant is operating
normally, calculating the Mahalanobis distance and using the distance along
with values in the first and second unit space to determine whether the plant
is operating normally or abnormally, and displaying the results. Claim 1
further recites the first and second unit spaces are created during first and
second periods, respectively. The first period occurs before a first time
when the operation state of the gas turbine power generation plant is
evaluated during the start operation period (claim 1). The second period
occurs before a second time when the operation state of the gas turbine
power generation plant is evaluated during a load operation period (claim 1).
The first and second periods precede the first and second time by a first
length of time (claim 1). The first and second periods shift along with the
first and second times (claim 1). Claim 1 recites that shifting the first and
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

15
second periods forward in time corresponding to the advanced first time and
creating first and second unit spaces without considering the quantity of the
operation state of the gas turbine power generation plant that was acquired
and used to create the first and second unit spaces, respectively, before, but
no longer falls in the shifted first and second periods, respectively (claim 1).
As disclosed in the Specification, it known in the art to use
Mahalanobis distances and unit spaces to determine whether an abnormal
operation arises in a power plant (¶ 3). The prior art method includes a start-
up portion and a rated load portion of the power plant cycle together so that
a normal operation may be inaccurately characterized as abnormal (¶ 3).
The prior art method requires a plurality of unit spaces for each season (¶¶ 3,
64). The plurality of unit spaces take up storage space on the storage unit (¶
64).
In contrast to the prior art method, the Specification describes that
“shifting” steps in the claim provide a more accurate determination of
whether the plant is operating normally because such shifting permits
abnormal weather conditions to be reflected in the unit space determination
(Spec. ¶ 84). The Specification discloses that because first and second
periods are shifted along, it is not necessary to prepare a plurality of unit
spaces (Spec. ¶ 85). Therefore, the shifting steps in the claims reduce the
storage area of the unit space in the storage unit 13 provided in the plant
state monitoring apparatus (Spec. ¶ 85).
In other words, the claimed method differs from the generic method
used to assess a normal operation in a gas turbine power plant. Based on
this finding, Flook would not apply to the facts because the claimed method
differs from the prior art method. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314 (“This [McRO
Appeal 2018-007997
Application 12/679,619

16
invention] is unlike Flook, Bilski, and Alice where the claimed computer-
automated process and the prior method were carried out in the same way.”).
Rather, we find that the ordered combination of steps and apparatus
limitations in the claims that include the shifting step are tied to a practical
application that provides a beneficial reduction in storage space and better
accuracy in determining whether a gas turbine power generation plant is
operating normally. As such, Appellant’s claims are similar to the facts in
McRO. In light of this finding, we find that the claims are patent eligible
under § 101 and reverse the Examiner’s rejection.

CONCLUSION

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9,
11–13, 15–17,
19, 21–26, 28–
38, and 40
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11–13,
15–17, 19, 21–26,
28–38, and 40

REVERSED