David Monroe. Levermore et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 27, 2019

13155076 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 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.
13/155,076 06/07/2011 David Monroe Levermore 886918 2560US.1 (0173.1) 2285
128836 7590 11/27/2019
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/BOEING
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2019 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):
ipdocketing@wbd-us.com
patentadmin@Boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID MONROE LEVERMORE, JOHN MARK GARNDER,
and JACK MARK BLAYLOCK
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12, 14, 16–19 and 21–29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing
Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of the claims relates to a design analysis
integration (DAI) program for managing data and the non-transitory
computer-readable storage media on which it is stored (see, e.g., claim 1), an
apparatus system for design and analysis integration (see, e.g., claim 7), and
a method for integrating design and analysis features and context metadata
into persistent data (see, e.g., claim 11).
The design analysis integration (DAI) program manages and exploits
engineering data, such as data associated with the development and lifecycle
of an airplane body panel. Spec. ¶¶ 2–4, 77; Fig. 5 (body panel 350).
According to the Specification, commercial analysis data management
(ADM) systems provide data management, but are not capable of managing
and exploiting engineering data at a granular level (i.e., name-value pairs,
attributes, and properties), and associated metadata. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 7. According
to the Specification, DAI includes several new concepts. Spec. ¶ 49. One
new concept is the focus of the analysis on a single part feature object (e.g.,
bay 1A of aircraft body panel 350 of Figure 5) as opposed to the monolithic
part (the entire body panel 350) as is traditionally done. Id.; Spec. ¶ 77; Fig.
5.
Appellant’s design analysis integration (DAI) program can coexist
with ADM systems, but can exploit engineering data at a granular level
relative to part features (the contextual level relevant to the engineer). Spec.
¶¶ 46-47. Because engineers ultimately size features of parts and not parts
per se, DAI provides object representations of these part features, their
necessary descriptive data, and their encompassing analysis, as manageable
software business objects. Spec. ¶ 47. Claim 1, reproduced below with the
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

3
limitation most at issue highlighted, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage
media having computer-executable instructions embodied
thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor, the
computer-executable instructions cause the at least one
processor to:
identify a part feature data object having a unique
identifier and corresponding to a particular part feature of a
monolithic part composed of a plurality of part features having
respective unique identifiers, wherein the part feature data
object has associated attributes related to the part feature
available from a plurality of disparate sources of data related to
the design, fabrication and testing of the monolithic part, the
associated attributes related to the part feature including
geometric properties of the part feature from a geometry model,
and load and material properties of the part feature from a finite
element model;
define an analysis data object directed to the part feature,
the analysis data object including attributes that reference the
unique identifier of the part feature data object, and that
reference the associated attributes related to the part feature;
define a structural analysis of the part feature to be
associated with the analysis data object, wherein the defined
structural analysis is configured to receive data inputs and
generate data outputs, wherein the data inputs include at least
some of the associated attributes related to the part feature,
including at least some of the geometric properties, load and
material properties;
perform a verification to determine that the associated
attributes related to the part feature associated include all the
data inputs needed for the defined structural analysis;
in response to the determination, after performing the
verification, that not all the data inputs needed are available,
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

4
automatically access an additional data source to retrieve
additional data to complete the defined structural analysis;
execute the defined structural analysis of the part feature
upon receipt of all the data inputs needed for the defined
structural analysis, wherein execution of the defined structural
analysis populates the analysis data object with the data inputs
and the data outputs; and
storing the analysis data object including the data inputs
and the data outputs, such that the data inputs and the data
outputs are contained within the analysis data object, the
analysis data object stored in an application independent format
outside of the disparate sources of data.
Appeal Br. 20–21 (Claims Appendix).

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hensey US 6,816,762 B2 Nov. 09, 2004
Szabo US 2003/0135840 A1 July 17, 2003
Ishikawa US 2007/0233436 A1 Oct. 04, 2007
Malkin US 2008/0183402 A1 July 31, 2008
Malkowicz US 2009/0222427 A1 Sept. 03, 2009
Stacklin US 2011/0060601 A1 Mar. 10, 2011
Wikipedia Component Object
Model, Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia,
(accessed using the
Wayback Machine
internet archive)
Mar. 31, 2011

REJECTIONS
According to the Examiner, the claims are rejected as follows:
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

5
A. Claims 1–12, 14, 16–19, and 21–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre–AIA), first paragraph, as failing
to comply with the written description requirement. Non-Final Act.
2.
B. Claims 1–12, 14, 16–19, and 21–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as patent-ineligible. Non-Final Act. 3.
C. Claims 1–4, 7–9, 11, 14, 16–18, and 21–29 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Malkowicz in
view of Ishikawa, Malkin, Szabo, and Stacklin. Non-Final Act. 5.
D. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Malkowicz in view of Ishikawa, Malkin,
Szabo, Stacklin, and further in view of Wikipedia. Non-Final Act.
31.
E. Claims 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Malkowicz in view of
Ishikawa, Malkin, Szabo, Stacklin, and further in view of Hensey.
Non-Final Act. 32.

OPINION
Written Descriptive Support
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–
12, 14, 16–19, and 21–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre–
AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement lacks factual support. Appeal Br. 7–8.
The Examiner’s rejection is based on an erroneous reading of the
claims.
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

6
Claims 1 and 7 require a processor that is programmed to “identify a
part feature data object having a unique identifier and corresponding to a
particular part feature of a monolithic part composed of a plurality of part
features having respective unique identifiers.” Claims 1 and 7 (emphasis
added). Claim 11 requires an analogous method step of identifying.
The Examiner emphases the words “monolithic part” in the above
clause and states that “[t]his recitation is not supported by the originally-
filed Specification.” Non-Final Act. 2–3. According to the Examiner, the
written description conveys that Appellant’s “analysis does not entail the
analysis of a monolithic part, which was the manner of analysis performed
by the prior art.” Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner then quotes paragraph 49
of the Specification as follows: “The scope of an analysis encompasses a
single part feature object as opposed to the monolithic part as is
traditionally done.” Non-Final Act. 3.
Although the Examiner is correct that Appellant’s invention is not
directed to analyzing the monolithic part; that is beside the point. This is
because the claims are not directed to analyzing the monolithic part. The
claims are directed to analyzing “a particular part feature of a monolithic
part.” Claims 1, 7, 11 (emphasis added). This matches what is described in
Appellant’s written description. See Spec. ¶ 46 (“the DAI process 20
emphasizes granular data management relative to part features . . .”)
(emphasis added); Spec. ¶ 47 (“To this end, because engineers ultimately
size features of parts and not parts per se, DAI provides object
representations of these part features . . .”) (emphasis added); Spec. ¶ 49
(“The scope of an analysis encompasses a single part feature object as
opposed to the monolithic part as is traditionally done.”) (emphasis added);
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

7
Spec. ¶ 75 (“DAI creates, groups, serves, and manages related sets of loosely
coupled objects . . . that describe a part feature level analysis stored in
various analysis data objects.”) (emphasis added).
Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–12, 14, 16–19, and 21–29
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre–AIA), first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.

Eligibility
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–
12, 14, 16–19, and 21–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as patent-ineligible is
legally erroneous. Appeal Br. 9.
Section 101 of the Patent Act defines the subject matter that is eligible
for patent protection. It states that:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Although this section of the statute appears expansive at first, the
Supreme Court has held that it “contains an important implicit exception:
Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n
for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589
(2013)). As the fundamental building blocks of the universe, laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas “are the basic tools of scientific and
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

8
technological work that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.”
Myriad, 569 U.S, at 589 (internal quotations omitted).
In order to distinguish patent-ineligible claims to laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from patent-eligible claims to
applications of those basic building blocks, the Supreme Court has devised a
two-step framework. The first step in that framework involves determining
“whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (emphasis added).
The Patent Office has promulgated guidance to help answer the
“directed to” question. Under the Patent Office’s current guidance, this
“directed to” question is termed Step 2A and it is divided into two prongs.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”); October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance
Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (available at
(https://www.uspto.gov/PatentEligibility) (“October 2019 Update”). In
Prong 1, we determine whether the claim recites one of the abstract ideas
discussed in Section I of the Guidance, which lists as abstract ideas,
mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, such
as a fundamental economic practice, and mental processes. Guidance §
III.A.1. A claim that includes one of these abstract ideas must be further
reviewed in Prong 2 to determine whether the claim integrates the abstract
idea into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception. Guidance § III.A.2.
The Examiner determines that the claims are “directed to the abstract
idea of an algorithm for performing structural modeling of a part (a
mathematical algorithm).” Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner does not
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

9
point out which limitations are “directed to” this structural modeling or
which limitations are part of a mathematical algorithm. Id. Nor is there any
analysis indicating that the Examiner considered the claims in their entirety
to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded
subject matter, an analysis necessary to support a rejection. McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appellant acknowledges that the claims include an algorithm, but
contend that the algorithm is not a mathematical algorithm “any more than
the computer-implemented rules at issue in McRO” were directed to a
mathematical algorithm. Appeal Br. 9–10. The Examiner does not address
this argument other than to say that the claims “are directed to the creating
of a structural analysis and then the executing of that structural analysis.”
Ans. 6. Again, the Examiner does not identify which limitations in the claim
recite a mathematical algorithm or include any analysis indicating that the
character of any claim as a whole is directed to an ineligible abstract idea.
Abstract ideas are barred from patent eligibility because they are the
fundamental building blocks of the universe, i.e. “the basic tools of scientific
and technological work that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.”
Myriad, at 589 (internal quotations omitted). As explained in Diamond v.
Diehr, “[a] principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original
cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of
them an exclusive right.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)
(quoting Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175, 14 L.Ed. 367 (1853)). Within
the abstract idea construct are mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations that describe natural
phenomena. Guidance § I. As pointed out in Diehr, for instance, “Einstein
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

10
could not patent his celebrated law that E = mc2; nor could Newton have
patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are ‘manifestations of ...
nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.’” Id. (quoting
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980) (alteration in original).
When an algorithm is nothing more than a procedure for solving a given
type of mathematical problem, it may be patent-ineligible because it is like a
law of nature. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 186. However, not all algorithms are
procedures for solving a given type of mathematical problem and the
Examiner has not established that Appellant’s claims recite a mathematical
procedure describing a law of nature.
Like the claims of McRO, Appellant’s claims define meaningful
requirements in the context of a computer program. Here, Appellant’s claims
require the processor to identify a part feature data object having a unique
identifier (e.g., P.Body.S401.Frame.Frame1A) that corresponds to a
particular part feature (e.g., Frame 1A shown in Figure 5) of a monolithic
part (e.g., body panel 350). This part feature data object has associated
attributes from various sources of data as recited in claim 1 and is used in
defining an analysis data object. Appellant’s Specification indicates that this
use of part feature data objects is an improvement over the prior art of
analyzing the monolithic part as a whole. Spec. ¶ 49.
The Examiner has pointed to no mathematical expressions that
describe a scientific truth here. Although Appellant’s computer program and
process involve an algorithm, this algorithm is not simply performing a
mathematical function. It is specifically limited like the program of McRO.
Because the Examiner has not established that the claims recite one of the
abstract ideas discussed in Section I of the Guidance, our analysis ends at
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

11
Step 2A, prong 1 of the Guidance and we determine that the claims are not
“directed to” a patent-ineligible concept under the framework of Alice.
Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–12, 14, 16–19, and 21–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as patent
ineligible. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection.

Obviousness
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 7–9, 11, 14, 16–18, and 21–29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Malkowicz in view of
Ishikawa, Malkin, Szabo, and Stacklin and adds Wikipedia to reject claims 5
and 6 and adds Hensey to reject claims 10, 12, and 19. We agree with
Appellant that the Examiner reversibly erred in these rejections.
Appellant’s claims require a computer program that identifies a part
feature data object having a unique identifier (e.g., P.Body.S401.Bay.
Bay1A) that corresponds to a particular part feature (e.g., Bay 1A shown in
Figure 5) of a monolithic part (e.g., body panel 350). This part feature data
object has associated attributes from various sources of data (claims 1, 7,
and 11) and is used in defining an analysis data object. For instance, it is
used in sizing body panel 350.
The Examiner finds that Malkowicz discloses programming that
identifies the required part feature data object in paragraphs 15, 50, and 64.
But those paragraphs describe a parts tracking database that tracks entire
parts and components assembled from entire parts. Malkowicz ¶¶ 15, 50, 64.
The Examiner does not dispute that this is so. Instead, the Examiner
determines that Malkowicz’s components assembled from individual parts
are “parts” within the meaning of the claims and Malkowicz’s individual
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

12
parts are “part features” of the components. Ans. 8. The Examiner then
acknowledges that Malkowicz fails to disclose that the part, i.e.,
Malkowicz’s component, which is an assembly of parts, is monolithic and
relies on Ishikawa.
Ishikawa discloses a structural analysis program. Ishikawa ¶ 1.
Ishikawa’s structural analysis program zooms in on a part feature where
maximum stress occurs and creates a detailed model for the part based on
partially modeling (zooming) the evaluation part at the part feature. Ishikawa
¶ 4. Ishikawa divides the model into meshes. Ishikawa ¶ 10.
Malkowicz is directed to the tracking of life-limited parts and
components (assemblies of parts). Malkowicz ¶ 1. The Examiner, on the one
hand, equates Malkowicz’s components (assemblies of parts) with the
monolithic part of the claims, but then, on the other hand, admits that the
assembled components of Malkowicz are not monolithic.
Appellant contends that “one skilled in the art would understand that
the part of the claimed invention is commensurate with the part of
Malkowicz, and not an assembly as in the Examiner’s erroneous
construction.” Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant has identified a reversible error.
First, the Examiner has not addressed Appellant’s contention. Ans. 8.
The Examiner does not provide any reasoning or cite to any portion of the
Specification supporting the interpretation of “part feature of a monolithic
part” as reading on the individual parts that comprise Malkowicz’s
components.
Second, we find no support for the Examiner’s interpretation. Rather,
upon review of the Specification, we determine that Appellant’s
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

13
interpretation is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the argued claim
language. The Specification discloses an example of feature-level sizing for
body panel 350, shown Figure 5. Spec. ¶ 103. Panel sizing is performed for
each of six bays of body panel 5. Id. The bays are part features identified
with part feature data objects. Spec. ¶ 77; Fig. 5. Body panel 350 is an
example of a monolithic part and the frames and bays shown in Figure 5 are
single part features that are subject to an analysis such as a buckling
analysis. Spec. ¶¶ 49, 77, 103.
The ordinary artisan would understand from a reading of Appellant’s
written description that a part feature, such as a frame or bay of a body
panel, is different from a part, i.e., the body panel itself. An assembly of
parts (Malkowicz’s component) is further different than an individual part.
For instance, an assembly would be a group of monolithic parts attached
together such as a group of body panels. A monolithic part is of one piece.
An assembly is not monolithic, but instead a group of parts attached to one
another.
Moreover, although Ishikawa performs a structural analysis on a part
feature, the Examiner has not provided a reasonable rationale and evidence
to support a finding of a suggestion to identify a part feature data object as
required by the claims in the program of Malkowicz, which tracks entire
parts and assemblies of parts. The Examiner states that “[i]t would have been
obvious to incorporate [Ishikawa’s] approach in analyzing the components
of Malkowicz so that the lifetime of individual parts within a monolithic
component could be independently considered.” Non-Final Act. 6. But the
Examiner fails to add any reasoning beyond that statement in response to
Appellant’s arguments. Ans. 9. The Examiner’s reference to Ishikawa’s
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

14
approach does not provide the kind of reasoning sufficient to support the
finding of a suggestion to use feature-specific structural analysis in a
program that tracks life-limited parts given the different objectives of part
tracking programs and engineering structural design programs. Nor does the
Examiner’s broad brush finding support a finding of a suggestion to perform
the specific identifying step required by the claims.
All the obviousness rejections fall based on the above discussed errors
in the Examiner’s obviousness analysis.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 14, 16–
19, 21–29
112, first
paragraph
Written Description 1–12, 14,
16–19,
21–29
1–12, 14, 16–
19, 21–29
101 Eligibility 1–12, 14,
16–19,
21–29
1–4, 7–9, 11,
14, 16–18,
21–29
103(a) Malkowicz,
Ishikawa, Malkin,
Szabo, Stacklin
1–4, 7–9,
11, 14,
16–18,
21–29
5, 6 103(a) Malkowicz,
Ishikawa, Malkin,
Szabo, Stacklin,
Wikipedia
5, 6
10, 12, 19 103(a) Malkowicz,
Ishikawa, Malkin,
10, 12, 19
Appeal 2018-008926
Application 13/155,076

15
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
Szabo, Stacklin,
Hensey
Overall
Outcome
1–12, 14,
16–19,
21–29

REVERSED