Stephen Forrest. Rogoff et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 15, 2019

13648581 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 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.
13/648,581 10/10/2012 Stephen Forrest Rogoff H0035338-5869 7338
89953 7590 11/15/2019
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
NGO, DACTHANG P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2863
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2019 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):
docket@fogglaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN FORREST ROGOFF and LEROY ERNEST VETSCH
____________

Appeal 2018-006372
Application 13/648,581
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1 to 3, 5, and 7 to 20 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.

1 Appellant identifies Honeywell International Inc. as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2018-006372
Application 13/648,581

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a system and a method of using a plurality of
sensors and a processing unit to compare rates of change between sensor
data and determine whether filtering of the sensor output is required (Claims
1, 13; Spec. ¶ 4).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to measure a common
physical parameter and generate sensor data based on
measurement of the common physical parameter;
a processing unit communicatively coupled to the
plurality of sensors and configured to receive the sensor data
based on the measurement of the common physical
parameter from each of the plurality of sensors;
wherein the processing unit is further configured to
compare a rate of change of sensor data for each individual
sensor of the plurality of sensors with rates of change of
sensor data for each of the other individual sensors of the
plurality of sensors, wherein the rates of change of sensor data
for each individual sensor are calculated during a common
time period;
wherein the processing unit is further configured to
output at least one of unfiltered sensor data and first filtered
sensor data based on sensor data from at least one
of the plurality of sensors when the rate of change of sensor
data for each of the plurality of sensors is within a first
threshold of the rate of change of sensor data for all of the
other plurality of sensors indicating that changes in the sensor
data are more likely actual changes in the common physical
parameter;
wherein the processing unit is further configured to
output second filtered sensor data based on sensor data from at
least one of the plurality of sensors when the rate of change of
sensor data for at least one of the plurality of sensors is not
within the first threshold of the rate of change of sensor data for
Appeal 2018-006372
Application 13/648,581

3
at least another of the plurality of sensors indicating that
changes in the sensor data are more likely noise in the output of
the at least one of the plurality of sensors;
wherein the unfiltered sensor data responds more quickly
to actual changes in the common physical parameter than the
second filtered sensor data;
wherein the first filtered sensor data is filtered less than
the second filtered sensor data and responds more quickly to
actual changes in the common physical parameter than
the second filtered sensor data; and
wherein the second filtered sensor data includes
minimized noise in the output of the at least one of the plurality
of sensors compared to the at least one of the unfiltered
sensor data and the first filtered sensor data.
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5, and 7 to 20
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 5 to 9 of the Final Action.
The Examiner determines that claims 1, 13, and 20 are directed to the
abstract idea of “comparing the rate of change of one sensor with other
sensors and performing certain action if the rate of change is within/not
within a threshold” (Final Act. 5, 7–8 emphasis omitted). The Examiner
finds that the abstract idea in claims 1, 13, and 20 amounts to collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis (Final Act. 6, 8). The Examiner finds that the facts presented in
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen, IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
2011) and Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) comport with the facts presented in this appeal (Final Act. 6, 8).
The Examiner finds that the additional claim limitations to sensors are
generic devices that are well-known in the art (Final Act. 6, 8). The
Appeal 2018-006372
Application 13/648,581

4
Examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea itself (Final Act. 7, 9).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s analysis is not consistent with
the current state of the law for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 (Appeal Br. 6). Appellant argues that unlike the facts in Electric
Power Group or Classen, the invention generates information using a
number of sensors and a protocol for determining whether and how much
filtering should be applied to the output of the sensors to strike a balance
between response time and reduction in noise in generating the information
(Appeal Br. 8). Appellant contends that the present claims are directed to an
improvement in sensor technology (Appeal Br. 8). Specifically, Appellant
argues that the system improves the information that is generated by a group
of sensors (Appeal Br. 8). Appellant contends that the claims are not
directed to an abstract idea because they are an improvement in sensor
technology (Appeal Br. 8). Appellant argues that the Specification discloses
how the invention recited in the claims improves sensor technology (Appeal
Br. 13). Specifically, Appellant contends that paragraphs 2, 3, 15 to 19, and
22 describe the problems with the state of the art sensor technology and
improvements to the sensor technology based upon the filtering the sensor
output as recited in the claims (Appeal Br. 13). Appellant argues that the
claims specify a particular configuration of sensors (with conditional logic
and filtering) that improves the responsiveness and impact of noise on the
sensor system (Appeal Br. 17).

Appeal 2018-006372
Application 13/648,581

5
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
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. 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, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
Appeal 2018-006372
Application 13/648,581

6
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
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“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 (citation and 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.
Appeal 2018-006372
Application 13/648,581

7
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:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human interactions 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) (9th
Ed., Rev. 08.2017 (Jan. 2018))).
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 is
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
In the present case, we agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 13, and
20 recite an abstract idea that involves mathematical concepts vis-a-vis the
programming/software that is part of the processing unit. Specifically, the
Appeal 2018-006372
Application 13/648,581

8
recitation that the processing unit is configured to compare a rate of change
of sensor data for each individual sensor of the plurality of sensors with the
rate of change sensor data for each of the other individual sensors of the
plurality of sensors and determining whether to filter or not the output of the
sensors based on the comparison amounts to a mathematical concept in the
invention. The claims in our view recite an abstract idea.
We now determine whether the additional elements in the claims
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. We find that
claims 1, 13, and 20 integrate the comparative algorithm into a practical
application. Specifically, claims 1, 13, and 20 include the sensors that are
coupled with the processing unit to determine whether to filter the output of
the sensors. Claim 1 recites that the noise in the output of the sensor is
minimized as compared to unfiltered sensor data. Method claim 13 recites
outputting the sensor data. Claim 20 recites a system where noise in the
filtered output is minimized. In other words, the sensor data is output and
further used in some manner. The Specification discloses that the sensors
may be a variety of sensors used in a variety of applications, including
sensors used on aircraft, on space vehicles, in systems worn by individuals,
in buildings, or used in manufacturing processes (Spec. ¶ 12). The sensors
may be pressure sensors, temperature sensors, velocity sensors,
accelerometers, altitude sensors, distance sensors, or gyroscopes among
others (Spec. ¶ 14).
As Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 8), the present claims are
distinguishable from, for example, those of Electric Power Group, LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), because the claims here
provide an improvement to sensor technology. The present claims are
Appeal 2018-006372
Application 13/648,581

9
necessarily rooted in sensor technology and seek to overcome problems
specifically arising in the realm of sensors. See Spec. ¶ 2 (“known systems
are only able to achieve a compromised level of noise reduction and
response time.”). The present claims are, therefore, analogous to, for
example, the claims our reviewing court held patent eligible in DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding
claims patent eligible where they were “necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks”).
Based on the language in the claims as understood in light of the
Specification, we find that the system of claims 1 and 20 and method of
claim 13 are integrated into a practical application. Therefore, based upon
applicable law and consistent with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, we determine that the claims satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 101 rejection.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 7–20 101 Eligibility 1–3, 5, 7–20

REVERSED