Ex parte Billon

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 25, 2002

08934393 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 25, 2002)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 40
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JEAN-PAUL BILLON
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-0168
Application No. 08/934,393
______________
HEARD: January 23, 2002
_______________
Before JERRY SMITH, LALL, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative
Patent Judges
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's final rejection of claims 15 through 17, 22,
23, 27, 30 through 38, 41 through 43, and 45 through 53, all
the pending claims in the application.
The disclosed invention relates to modeling of industrial
processes using an algorithm that is sufficiently concrete to
be
Appeal No. 2000-0168
Application No. 08/934,393
2
executed in a computer programming language of choice for
application to various specific end users within specific
fields of endeavor for use by professionals within those
fields. A given set of events, items and actions pertinent to
those fields are symbolically represented in an algorithm used
to program a computer. A computer responsive to the algorithm
provides a logical analysis of those symbolically represented
events, items and actions to produce a result expressed as a
logical computation usable by the professional to control
industrial systems within those fields of endeavor, which is a
useful, concrete, and tangible result. Logical elements are
arranged as mathematical “statements” which describe very
specific inter-relationships among the elements, i.e., both
the real-world problems of industrial systems and specific
real-world relationships are symbolically represented as
mathematical statements to represent real world problems and
how they actually inter-relate, so that computer predictions
of the outcome of those inter-relations can be made. A
further understanding of the invention can be achieved by the
reading of claim 27, a copy of which is attached to this
Appeal No. 2000-0168
Application No. 08/934,393
A reply brief (paper no. 34) and a supplemental reply brief (paper no.1
35) were filed on July 12, 1999, and July 23, 1999 respectively. The entry of
both of these documents was noted by the examiner (paper no. 36) without any
further response.
3
decision.
Claims 15 through 17, 22, 23, 27, 30 through 38, 41
through 43, and 45 through 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
101 as being directed to a non-statutory matter. There is no
art rejection in the case.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for1
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejection advanced by the examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs.
We reverse.
In response to the final rejection (paper no. 23) which
in turn references the previous rejection (paper no. 19),
appellant argues with respect to claims 15 through 17, 22, 23,
Appeal No. 2000-0168
Application No. 08/934,393
4
27, 37, 38, 41 through 43, and 45 through 53 (brief at page
12, et seq.) that the examiner’s analysis fails to consider
the claims as a whole and that the examiner misunderstands the
definition of
“industrial system”. Appellant continues, brief at page 13,
that: “the rejection, [sic] erroneously relies on the now
reversed State Street Bank . . . ” Appellant further argues,
Id. at page 14, that: “[t]he examiner looks only to the
operation of the algorithm and fails to look to the entire
process claims.” The examiner responds, answer at page 4,
that: “[t]he application contains no disclosure relating to
means of implementing any of the end uses recited in claims
. . . . The claims are essentially directed to the method of
calculating numbers to determine the unsatisfiability of input
terms in a mathematical algorithm.” The examiner further
responds, Id., that: “[i]n State Street Bank, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the claims
involved produced ‘a useful, concrete and tangible result’.”
Appeal No. 2000-0168
Application No. 08/934,393
5
Appellant argues, reply brief at page 3, that:
The claims at issue relate to a test computer
program utilizing high level mathematics for
verifying an operation or defect to be able to
control the development of an industrial system
(described in terms of numerous fields of
technology, science and medicine, where those
numerous fields are symbolically represented within
the mathematics) by virtue of test results obtained.
A calculated result is used for decision making in
the control process. Such clearly provides a useful,
concrete and tangible result.
We agree with the appellant’s position. The claims in
each instance recite a useful, concrete and tangible result.
For instance, see claim 27, steps 5 and 6. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 15 through 17, 22, 23, 27,
37, 38, 41 through 43, and 45 through 53 under 35 U.S.C. §
101.
With respect to claims 30 through 36, final rejection,
paper no. 23, appellant argues, brief at page 17, that:
“[c]laims 30-36 define the invention as an information carrier
including a computer-readable medium having a program stored
therein.” In response, the examiner states, answer at page 5,
that: “MPEP Section 2106 . . . states that ‘when a computer
program is recited in conjunction with a physical structure,
Appeal No. 2000-0168
Application No. 08/934,393
6
such as a computer memory, Office Personnel should treat the
claim as a product claim . . . .’” We do not agree with the
examiner’s position. Rather, we are persuaded by appellant
that these claims indeed are directed to a computer-readable
medium having a program stored therein. Since we have decided
above, that the computer program as claimed does belong to a
statutory process under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we conclude that
these claims also belong
to the statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore,
we
reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 30 through 36.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 15 through
17, 22, 23, 27, 30 through 38, 41 through 43, and 45 through
53 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 2000-0168
Application No. 08/934,393
7
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 2000-0168
Application No. 08/934,393
8
EDWARD J. KONDRACKI
MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C.
1751 PINNACLE DRIVE
SUITE 500
MCLEAN, VA 22102-3833
Appeal No. 2000-0168
Application No. 08/934,393
9
APPENDIX
Claim 27
27. A computer-implemented method of automated
proving for unrestricted first-order logic to test
the unsatisfiability of a set of input terms (Q)
representative of clauses or superclauses, the set
of input terms describing an industrial system, the
method comprising the steps of:
(1) mapping in a computer each of the input
terms (Q) onto an equivalent generalized term
defined as a triplet , where , is an empty
substitution and i is an empty set, to form a set
(E)of generalized terms;
(2) applying, in the computer, to the set
(E) an instance extraction rule (IE) defined as
follows:
(IE) E 6 (E -{Q})c(Q,Q)
where F is a substitution, 7 is a finite set of
standard substitutions {7 ,..., 7 }, the doublet is a generalized substitution which maps a
standard term onto a generalized term defined as a
triplet such that = , F is a
substitution valid for the generalized term
and QF is an instance of Q yielded by the
substitution F and is a standard term equivalent to
the generalized term the instance extraction
rule (IE) resulting from an instance generation rule
(IG) and an instance subtraction rule (IS), the
instance generation rule being defined as:
(IG) Q
Q
Appeal No. 2000-0168
Application No. 08/934,393
10
and the instance subtraction rule being defined as:
(IS) Q 6 Q
meaning that the triplet Q should be replaced
with Q , the step (2) resulting in a
current set (E);
(3) generating, in the computer, a ground
instance GIG(E) of the current set E, the ground
instance generation GIG being a ground substitution
replacing every variable with a same fixed constant
and defined by the rule:
(GIG) Q
Qgr
where Q is a ground instance of term Q, the groundgr
instance Q being obtained by replacing everygr
variable with a same fixed constant;
(4) applying and repeating steps (2) and (3) in
the computer until the ground instance GIG(E) of the
current set (E) is unsatisfiable;
(5) determining, in the computer, the
unsatisfiability of the set of input terms when the
ground instance GIG(E) is unsatisfiable; and
(6) controlling development of the
industrial system using information on the
unsatisfiability of the input terms.