Christopher A. Oberhauser

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 18, 2020

13490315 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2020)

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.
13/490,315 06/06/2012 Christopher A. Oberhauser TI-88318 1038
23494 7590 02/18/2020
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
DINH, LYNDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2020 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER A. OBERHAUSER
_______________
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315
Technology Center 2800
_______________
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 13–15, 17, 21, 22, and 24
of Application 13/490,315. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application
13/490,315 (“the ’315 App.”) filed June 6, 2012; the Final Office Action
dated June 23, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed May 24, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Aug. 3, 2018 (“Ans.”); and
the Reply Brief filed Oct. 3, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Texas Instruments Incorporated as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The ’315 Application relates to techniques for arc detection in
photovoltaic systems. Spec. 2. Large arrays of photovoltaic panels (solar
panels) can generate high voltages, with the potential for formation of
electrical arcs that are a safety hazard. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 4. The invention
concerns methods and apparatuses for detecting such electrical arcs. Spec.
¶ 5. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
(a) receiving signals associated with operation of a DC
(direct current) high-voltage system, including signals
associated with an electrical arc condition present in the DC
high voltage system;
(b) transforming the signals into frequency domain data,
(c) determining a power spectrum associated with the
frequency domain data;
(d) dividing the power spectrum into multiple bands; and
(e) filtering one or more interfering signals from the
power spectrum within the bands to generate a filtered power
spectrum, including for each of the bands
(1) identifying one or more peak values at one or
more frequencies associated with the one or more
interfering signals, and
(2) at least partially reducing a magnitude of the
power spectrum at the one or more frequencies
associated with the one or more interfering signals; and
then
(f) generating, from the filtered power spectrum, an arc
detection result based on
(1) for each of the bands, summing magnitudes of
the remaining signals to generate a summation;
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

3
(2) for at least one of the summations, applying at
least one scaling factor to generate at least one scaled
summation, and
(3) generating the arc detection result as a total
sum of the summations including the at least one scaled
summation; and
(g) signaling, based on the arc detection result, an arc
detection event indicative of the electrical arc condition.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (formatting and numbering added to aid in
analysis).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection of the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 4–6.
PRINCIPLES 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. The
Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216
(2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excepted category,
we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in
Alice (see id. at 217–18), and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, 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.
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

4
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (id. at 219–20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010)); 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. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson,
409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
If a 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. “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).
In January 2019, the PTO published revised guidance on the
application of Section 101. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under
the Guidance, we first look to whether a claim recites (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) (“Guidance Step 2A,
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

5
Prong One”), and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)) (“Guidance
Step 2A, Prong Two”). 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 (“Guidance Step 2B”).
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues method claim 1 and its dependent claims 4–7 and 9
as a group. Appeal Br. 6–11. Appellant argues that apparatus claim 10 (and
its dependent claims 13–15 and 17) are patentable “[b]ased on substantively
the same analysis, and for substantively the same reasons” as made in
relation to claim 1. Id. at 11. We select claim 1 as representative of the
rejected claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
patent ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 4.
Step 1 – Is the claim to patentable subject matter?
Claim 1 recites a method, which is a process, which is a statutory
category of invention.
Judicial Exception — Guidance Step 2A, Prong One
As indicated above, under Guidance Step 2A, Prong One, we consider
whether claim 1 recites a judicial exception to the statutory categories of
patent-eligible subject matter, including one of the following groupings of
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

6
abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts, e.g., mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2)
mental processes, e.g., concepts performed in the human mind, including
observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions; and (3) certain methods
of organizing human activity. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations: (a) “receiving signals
associated with operation of a DC (direct current ) high-voltage system,
. . . ;” (b) “transforming the signals into frequency domain data;” (c)
“determining a power spectrum associated with the frequency domain data;”
(d) “dividing the power spectrum into multiple bands;” (e) “filtering one or
more interfering signals . . . to generate a filter power spectrum;” (e)(1) “for
each of the bands identifying one or more peak values at one or more
frequencies . . . ;” (e)(2) “at least partially reducing a magnitude of the
power spectrum at the one or more frequencies associated with the one or
more interfering signals;” (f) “generating, from the power filtered spectrum,
an arc detection result based on (f)(1) for each of the bands, summing
magnitudes of the remaining signals to generate a summation;” (f)(2) “for at
least one of the summations, applying at least one scaling factor to generate
at least one scaled summation;” (f)(3) “generating the arc detection result as
a total sum of the summations . . . ;” and (g) “signaling, based on the arc
detection result, an arc detection event indicative of the electrical arc
condition.” Appeal Br. 13–14 (Claims App.). Each of the limitations (b)–(f)
recites a mathematical calculation, which falls within the “mathematical
concepts” grouping identified by the courts as an abstract idea. 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52.
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

7
The Supreme Court has established that a mathematical concept
without more does not constitute patent-eligible subject matter. See Parker
v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 587–96 (1978) (“Here it is absolutely clear that
respondent’s application contains no claim of patentable invention.
. . . Respondent’s application simply provides a new and presumably better
method for calculating alarm limit values.”); Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v.
Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939) (“[A] scientific truth, or the
mathematical expression of it, is not patentable invention. . . . ”).
Limitations (b)–(f)(3) recite mathematical calculations, which are
mathematical concepts, which are, in turn, abstract ideas. More specifically,
limitation (b) recites “transforming the signals into frequency domain data,”
which involves mathematical calculations. See Appeal Br. 13 (Claims
App.). The Specification explains the steps involved: “the range and the
average value of an input measurement signal are calculated,” and “[t]he
average value is subtracted from the measurement signal . . ., and a Hanning
window is applied to the result measurement signal;” “[t]he windowed
measurement signal is dynamically scaled” which “could include
dynamically scaling the signal based on the calculated range to
approximately ¼ of the full-scale range.” Spec. ¶ 39. Limitation (b) thus
involves numerous mathematical calculations.
Limitation (c) recites “determining a power spectrum associated with
the frequency domain data.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The
Specification explains that an FFT (fast Fourier transform) [a mathematical
method for transforming a function of time into a function of frequency] is
performed on the time domain processed signal, and “the calculations can be
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

8
done in-place to save memory.” Spec. ¶ 40. Limitation (c) recites a
mathematical calculation.
Limitation (d) recites “dividing the power spectrum into multiple
bands.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Specification describes “[t]he
complex results of the FFT are converted into a power spectrum and phase
information is discarded.” Spec. ¶ 41. The Specification states that “only
the relevant portion of the power spectrum (defined between Min Frequency
and Max Frequency) may be calculated, which can reduce power
consumption and computational time by not calculating unused
frequencies.” Id.; see also ¶ 42. Thus, limitation (d) recites mathematical
calculations.
Limitation (e) recites “filtering one or more interfering signals from
the power spectrum within the bands to generate a filtered power spectrum,
including for each of the bands [(1)] identifying one or more peak values at
one or more frequencies associated with the one or more interfering signals,
and [(2)] at least partially reducing a magnitude of the power spectrum at
one or more frequencies associated with the one or more interfering signals.”
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). Filtering a signal involves comparisons of
values and mathematical calculations. The Specification describes selecting
an unprocessed spectral band based on, e.g., the lowest-frequency band, and
removing potential jamming signals from the selected band “according to
the value of Discard Factor,” which may be from 0% to 70%. Spec. ¶ 43.
“[T]he removal of the potential jammer is performed by reducing the value
of the magnitude squared spectrum at the frequency of the jammer.” Id.
These steps recite mathematical calculations at least of addition and
subtraction.
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

9
Limitation (f) recites “generating, from the filtered power spectrum,
an arc detection result based on [(1)] for each of the bands, summing
magnitudes of the remaining signals to generation a summation; [(2)] for at
least one of the summations, applying at least one scaling factor to generate
at least one scaled summation, and [(3)] generating the arc detection result as
a total sum of the summations including the at least one scaled summation.”
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Specification describes “summing the
magnitude-squared spectrum in the selected band and converting the sum to
floating point,” and applying a Filter Weight parameter to the sum. Spec.
¶ 44. The total sum of the summations for the spectral bands is computed
and a logarithm is taken of the total sum. Id. ¶ 46. An arc detection result
is generated, and “could represent the processed and corrected total sum.”
Id. ¶ 47. Thus, limitation (f) recites mathematical calculations of summing
(addition and subtraction), scaling (as by multiplication of values with a
scaling factor), and logarithms. See Spec. ¶¶ 44, 46.
Based on the above analysis, claim 1 recites mathematical
calculations, which fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of
abstract ideas. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Therefore we proceed to Step
2A, Prong Two.
Integration into a Practical Application — Guidance Step 2A, Prong
Two
Having determined that claim 1 recites the abstract ideas of
mathematical concepts, we next look to determine whether the claim recites
“additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54. According to the Guidance,
even if a claim recites any one of three groupings of abstract ideas, the claim
is still not “directed to” a judicial exception (abstract idea), and thus is patent
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

10
eligible, if “the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into
a practical application of that exception.” Id. at 53. Limitations that are
indicative of “integration into a practical application” include: (1)
improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology
or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) applying the judicial
exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see id. § 2106.05(b)); (3)
effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different
state or thing (see id. § 2106.05(c)); and (4) applying or using the judicial
exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of
the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that
the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception (see id. § 2106.05(e)). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55
(“Prong Two”). In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of “integration
into a practical application” include: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or an
equivalent) with the judicial exception, merely including instructions to
implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a
tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); (2) adding
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see id.
§ 2106.05(g); and (3) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use (see id. § 2106.05(h)).
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (“Prong Two”).
Besides the abstract ideas, claim 1 recites the additional elements of
(a) “receiving signals associated with operation of a DC (direct current)
high-voltage system, including signals associated with an electrical arc
condition present in the DC high voltage system,” and (g) “signaling, based
on the arc detection result, an arc detection event indicative of the electrical
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

11
arc condition.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Specification describes
use of “any suitable volatile and/or non-volatile storage and retrieval
device(s)”, “any suitable processing structure(s),” “any suitable structure(s)
for transmitting and/or receiving data over one or more communication lines
or networks,” and “any suitable program instructions.” Spec. ¶ 21. The
Specification thus indicates that no unique components or software is
required for receiving signals or signaling.
Limitations (a) and (g) recite the generic functions of receiving signals
and signaling. These limitations amount to data gathering and outputting,
which are insignificant extra-solution activity. See Parker v. Flook, 437
U.S. 584, 590 (1978) (“The notion that post-solution activity . . . can
transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form
over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-
solution activity to almost any mathematical formula.”). Appellant does not
claim that such pre- and post-solution activity is novel. See Spec. ¶ 4
(describing electrical arcs as a safety hazard, and stating that detecting
electrical arcs in high voltage systems can be problematic for a variety of
reasons). To the extent that novelty and nonobviousness exist, they appear
to be based in the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, not on the technological
environment in which the abstract ideas are practiced.
Claim 1 as a whole fails to integrate the mathematical calculations
(abstract ideas) into a practical application. Claim 1 recites no improvement
to a technology or technical field, no use of a particular machine to
implement the method, no transformation of an article to a different state or
thing, no application of the mathematical calculations in a meaningful way,
other than generally linking them to the technological environment of a DC
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

12
high-voltage system. Claim 1 does not require detection of an electrical arc
condition, but rather provides signaling should such condition occur. See
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). Appellant links the processes based on the
abstract ideas (mathematical calculations) to a particular technological
environment—DC high voltage systems where electrical arc conditions may
be present—but this is insufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a
practical application and confer patent eligibility on claim 1. See Diamond
v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981) (citation omitted).
We determine that claim 1 as a whole does not integrate the judicial
exception—mathematical concepts—into a practical application of that
exception. Merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of
use—DC high-voltage systems where electrical arc conditions may or may
not be present—does not indicate integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application.
Inventive Concept — Guidance Step 2B
Under Guidance Step 2B, we determine whether the claim provides an
“inventive concept,” i.e., whether the additional elements beyond the judicial
exception, individually and in combination, amount to “significantly more”
than the judicial exception itself. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. “[S]imply
append[ing] well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality,” indicates
absence of an inventive concept. Id.
Appellant argues that “[c]laim 1 defines a methodology that is in fact
significantly more than the abstract ideas argued” by the Examiner. Appeal
Br. 8. Specifically, Appellant argues the claim 1 (1) “is not directed to an
‘abstract idea of receiving data’, but rather recites ‘receiving signals . . .
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

13
including signals associated with an electrical arc condition present in the
DC high voltage system,” and (2) “is not directed to an ‘abstract idea of . . .
transforming the data into a frequency domain’, but rather recites
‘transforming the signals into frequency domain data’, which is then
processed according to a novel and nonobvious methodology based on a
‘power spectrum’ of the ‘frequency domain data.’” Id. at 8–9.
With regard to Appellant’s argument (1), we note that claim 1 is not
limited to receiving signals associated with an electric arc condition present
in a DC high-voltage system. Claim 1 merely states that received signal
include signals associated with such an electric arc condition. See id. at 13
(Claims App.). The received signals of claim 1 include all signals associated
with operation of a DC high-voltage system. See id. Receiving such signals
is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Such signals, alone
or as an ordered combination with the remainder of claim 1, do not amount
to significantly more than the abstract ideas recited in claim 1. See Alice,
573 U.S. at 218 (claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than
an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic
computer).
With regard to Appellant’s argument (2), we note that Appellant
contends that the “novel and nonobvious methodology” is processing
frequency domain data based on a power spectrum (Appeal Br. 8–9), the
steps of which we identify supra as reciting mathematical calculations, thus
abstract ideas. As such, claim 1 does not improve a technological process,
but simply allegedly improves calculations or determinations, which are still
abstract ideas.
Appeal 2019-000232
Application 13/490,315

14
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. In addressing step 2B, we
consider only the elements additional to the abstract idea. BSG Tech LLC v.
BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear
since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which
it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention
‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”). Limitations (a) and (g)
recite “well-understood, routine, conventional” steps; an inventive concept
does not arise in the claim limitations taken individually or as a whole with
the limitations that recite abstract ideas.
In conclusion, for the reasons stated above and in the Final Office
Action and Answer, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 4–7, 9, 10,
13–15, 17, 21, 22, and 24. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–7, 9, 10,
13–15, 17,
21, 22, 24
101 Eligibility
1, 4–7, 9,
10, 13–
15, 17,
21, 22, 24

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